IssueRaiser

inexperienced protobuf user here -- why do non-googlers generally use protobuf?

inexperienced protobuf user here -- why do non-googlers generally use protobuf? is it for the wire format, or for the schema language, or for the codegen? i have a feeling there is an unmet need for something without all the google-cruft but still gives you a nice schema language and convenient codegen. just a simple stripped-down service and types definition with some support for codegen plugins would cover most crud-like applications in the wild without requiring much fuss. even just supporting only JSON would be acceptable -- maybe an optional buyin for msgpack. i'm thinking twirp, but abandoning protobuf and using a new, simpler schema format.

Posted by krullin on Jul 12, 2026, 7:05 PM

Tags

Related issues

Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.2,000 issues0 comments

reliability (Other)

inexperienced protobuf user here -- why do non-googlers generally use protobuf?

krullinJul 12, 2026, 7:05 PM

inexperienced protobuf user here -- why do non-googlers generally use protobuf? is it for the wire format, or for the schema language, or for the codegen? i have a feeling there is an unmet need for something without all the google-cruft but still gives you a nice schema language and convenient codegen. just a simple stripped-down service and types definition with some support for codegen plugins would cover most crud-like applications in the wild without requiring much fuss. even just supporting only JSON would be acceptable -- maybe an optional buyin for msgpack. i'm thinking twirp, but abandoning protobuf and using a new, simpler schema format.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Start the discussion.

Comment on this issue