> Currently, they seem to favor xml-rs which only implements a subset of XML.
What in particular do you find objectionable about this implementation? It's only claiming to be an XML parser, it isn't claiming to validate against a DTD or Schema.
The XML standard is very complex and broad, I would be surprised if anyone has implemented it in it's entirety beyond a company like Microsoft or Oracle. Even then I would question it.
At the end of the day, much of XML is hard if not impossible to use or maintain. A lot of it was defined without much thought given to practicality and for most developers they will never had to deal with a lot of it's eccentricities.
This is, to me, one of the absolute biggest selling points for ZigBee and Z-Wave.
I can get some random, vendor I've never heard of, ZigBee sensor, and I know it won't do anything rogue on the internet because it doesn't have any way of getting to the internet.
Also, ZigBee is extremely power efficient compared to WiFi. With ZigBee, I don't mind putting a sensor in the crawlspace or somewhere a pain to get to. It won't need the batteries changed for a year or two anyway.
I know Matter can work over more efficient means than WiFi, but most of the cheaper devices I find are WiFi. A cheap ZigBee device is still ZigBee.
As I said, my experience has been that the cheaper products run on WiFi. I also don't like that a product advertising "Matter" doesn't answer the question of whether it uses WiFi or not.
I much prefer that a $3 ZigBee temperature and humidity sensor definitely doesn't use WiFi rather than having to dig to see if a cheap a Matter sensor uses WiFi.
> Gen 2, however, had no excuses. They had every opportunity to add active cooling and they still decided to go with just air cooling.
The Lizard pack in the later Nissan Leafs has held up surprisingly well. I have a 2015 that still gets 75 miles of range. I'm sure they thought it wasn't necessary and they probably had the actuarial numbers to justify it.
TLS certs use to be about Identity as much as they were about encryption. There was a pay wall to being able to have encrypted communications with clients that was the equivalent of a colonoscopy over fax machine. Today that takes the form of EV Certs. Let's Encrypt democratized encryption but not identity.
Going back back to HTTP would allow for communications to be monitored by any intermediary and would be a huge step backwards in terms of privacy. Advertisers or Adversaries wouldn't need to compromise the client or the server to track you. Just ask AT&T nicely or compell Cloudflare via secret warrant.
Anonymous encryption is essential to the freedom of communication.
Identity is a wholly different problem that should be solved without being tightly coupled to encryption. And at the end of the day it's still only as reliable as the host server.
Good on the Arduino folks for getting acquired, then. They still have a niche and a brand with name recognition, even if that niche might be stable at best, collapsing at worst.
> I've used the ESP32 native tools and they are a lot more complex than Arduino.
How so? All of that is abstracted away from the users just like it is for Arduinos. In fact you can use the Arduino IDE to develop for most ESP32 chips.
If anything Arduino is holding back everyone with their horrible IDE. Their Board and Library managers are painfully slow and having no way to store configuration with your sketch means that you're taking a screenshot of a drop down menu if you have to make any changes.
Eventually people want to write their own libraries to make their code more manageable and the Arduino IDE makes it difficult for someone who knows what they're doing.
> But I used an Arduino, with 5V tolerant outputs, to light up Halloween costumes for years.
I have yet to encounter a piece of hardware that doesn't respect 3.3v as signal high. All of the neopixel variant's data pins work off 3.3v and most people have moved on to 12v and even 24v for larger projects while still raw dogging 3.3v on the data pin without issue.
Arduino's insistence on 5v logic levels is for maintaining backward compatibility which is honestly unnecessary.
> The problem is that even for things like consoles, it's usually more "cost efficient" to write normal fast-to-write code that isn't maximally effective, let the compiler do its magic, and call it good enough.
Given all the time and money, there's also a skills gap.
Unlimited time and money will not make someone like me a John Carmack level programmer. There are a finite number of individuals operating at his level or above and having them hyper optimize code is a poor use of their time.
What in particular do you find objectionable about this implementation? It's only claiming to be an XML parser, it isn't claiming to validate against a DTD or Schema.
The XML standard is very complex and broad, I would be surprised if anyone has implemented it in it's entirety beyond a company like Microsoft or Oracle. Even then I would question it.
At the end of the day, much of XML is hard if not impossible to use or maintain. A lot of it was defined without much thought given to practicality and for most developers they will never had to deal with a lot of it's eccentricities.
reply