IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Call for volunteers for C/C++ API liaison manager

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Fri, 02 May 2014 07:32 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B90EA1A0A7E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 May 2014 00:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D2wY_CZ_W3Q6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 May 2014 00:32:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEDE01A0A7C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 May 2014 00:32:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 6D7E12802D9; Fri, 2 May 2014 09:32:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from relay1.nic.fr (relay1.nic.fr [192.134.4.162]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6848E2802AB; Fri, 2 May 2014 09:32:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:1348:7::86:133]) by relay1.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65BB84C0006; Fri, 2 May 2014 09:32:00 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 09:32:00 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Subject: Re: Call for volunteers for C/C++ API liaison manager
Message-ID: <20140502073200.GA5957@nic.fr>
References: <EB423B81-41F2-480D-B1EE-80E1753E1CDB@iab.org> <53618BDD.1080900@isi.edu> <5361B341.4000200@gmail.com> <5361B9FF.4020107@isdg.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5361B9FF.4020107@isdg.net>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux jessie/sid
X-Kernel: Linux 3.13-1-686-pae i686
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9088SxMp7rbKmMk0U5uMpgp8sww
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 07:32:35 -0000

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:05:35PM -0400,
 Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> wrote 
 a message of 25 lines which said:

> Its a difficult task to manage a multiple language API for examples
> of IETF protocols.  But it can be done.

I'm highly skeptical. For me, an API is always language-specific
because programming langauges are simply too different (typical
examples: parallel languages where concurrency is built-in
vs. programming languages where you need asynchronicity and callbacks,
programming languages with exceptions vs. programming languages with
return codes,etc).

In my experience, so called "high-level" API are not high-level at
all, they always assume a specific programming style, typically the
one of the language the author prefers.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email