Too bad Elixir/Rust wasn’t used.
It seems to be the perfect platform for a communications service (and is also what Discord is built on).
And before that, WhatsApps was strictly Erlang.
It seems to be the perfect platform for a communications service (and is also what Discord is built on).
And before that, WhatsApps was strictly Erlang.
Other issue with XMPP is how hard it is to find clients that don't suck (particularly if you want to interop; I think I've seen at least 3 different ways clients implemented emojis, for example).
> Other issue with XMPP is how hard it is to find clients that don't suck
OK, but the alternative we are talking about here consists of developing the server, protocol and clients all at once and from scratch, and end-up with something that's merely a prototype heading into a decade worth of enhancement and scalability improvements, iteratively bumping into the exact same kind of problems. Wouldn't it be less effort to just make an XMPP client that doesn't suck and lead by example? (That's pretty much what the "Conversations" Android client did when it came out, and now it's used by the German government, among others).
> I think I've seen at least 3 different ways clients implemented emojis, for example
I'm not aware of anything like that. There are different ways to do certain things, like sending attachments (HTTP upload or client-to-client), but that's the good thing about XMPP: your client/server negotiate capabilities and sometimes even translate among them.
I won't pretend that everything is rosy, for sure, but it also isn't that bad.
I tried getting E2EE working. There are 3 standards. Some clients implement one or two of them. Some clients none. It's a nightmare to get them to talk together.
Then you have all the other 400 XEPs that may or may not be implemented by clients. Things like file transfer, typing indicator, video chat, avatars, group chats.
The only way XMPP becomes relevant again is if they choose a subset of REQUIRED features and clients must implement them all to be considered XMPP2-compatible.
IMO, what does matter for XMPP's future is that it remains appealing to a growing niche of users who want to be in control, for whom self/local-hosting is important (XMPP excels at that), who care about privacy (OMEMO is state of the art, and XMPP offers gentler alternatives where PFS isn't desired), and who understand the benefits of federation for resilience. This niche will grow naturally as more and more people get deceived by every monopolistic network being doomed to grow beyond a threshold of sustainability and implode as a result. By that time, it only matters that there are enough sufficiently well maintained and user-friendly clients on all platforms for those "super-users" to embark their peers (which is currently largely the case).
This is how I ended-up here, in fact. I refused to join WhatsApp because I was tired of previous forced migrations from protocols I thought were "too big to fail" (MSN, Skype, …), WhatsApp was already banned in some of the countries I was travelling to for work, and I so, after a failed errand with Matrix, I rediscovered XMPP 10 years after I had my first account on it. Today I have about a hundred contacts there, and the less tech-literate of my peers notice no practical difference in usability or features compared to something like WhatsApp: it just works.