Just for fun, how often do regular-sized companies that deal in regular-sized traffic need Protobuf to accomplish their goals in the first place, compared to JSON or even XML with basic string marshalling?
Do you want to maintain that and debug that? Do you want to do all of that without help of a compiler enforcing the schema and failing compiles/CI when someone accidentally changes the schema?
Because you get all of that with protobuf if you use them appropriately.
You can of course build all of this yourself... and maybe it'll even be as efficient, performant and supported. Maybe.
Assuming you were using Protobufs as they are usually used, meaning under generated code, I saw no difference between using it in Javascript and any other language in my experience. The wire format is beyond your concern. At least it is no more of your concern than it is in any other environment.
There are a number of different generator implementations for Javascript/Typescript. Some of them have some peculiar design choices. Is that where you found issue? I would certainly agree with that, but others aren't so bad. That doesn't really have anything to do with the browser, though. You'd have the same problem using protobufs under Node.js.
And it works in a browser, too!
Having a way to describe your whole API and generate bindings is a godsend. Yes, it can be done with JSON and OpenApi, yet it’s not mandatory.
It is not mandatory for Protobuf either. You can construct a protobuf message with an implied structure just as you can with JSON. It does not violate the spec.
Protobuf ultimately gets the nod because it has better tooling (which isn't to be taken as praise towards Protobuf's tooling, but OpenAPI is worse).
It sounds weird, and its totally dependent on your use case, but binary serialization can make a giant difference.
For me, I work with 3D data which is primarily (but not only) tightly packed arrays of floats & ints. I have a bunch of options available:
1. JSON/XML, readable, easy to work with, relatively bulky (but not as bad as people think if you compress) but no random access, and slow floating point parsing, great extensibility.
2. JSON/XML + base64, OK to work with, quite bulky, no random access, faster parsing, but no structure, extensible.
3. Manual binary serialization: hard to work with, OK size (esp compressed), random access if you put in the effort, optimal parsing, not extensible unless you put in a lot of effort.
4. Flatbuffers/protobuf/capn-proto/etc: easy to work with, great size (esp compressed), random access, close-to-optimal parsing, extensible.
Basically if you care about performance, you would really like to just have control of the binary layout of your data, but you generally don't want to design extensibility and random access yourself, so you end up sacrificing explicit layout (and so some performance) by choosing a convenient lib.
We are a very regularly sized company, but our 3D data spans hundreds of terabytes.
(also, no, there is no general purpose 3D format available to do this work, gltf and friends are great but have a small range of usecases)
Statistically, a lot of people who post on HN and cling to new or advanced tech *do* just write CRUD apps with a little special sauce, it’s part of what makes vibe coding and many of the frameworks we use so appealing.
I’m not ignoring that other things exist and are even very common; and I was agreeing with the person that’s a useful case.
I’ve also worked for various companies where protobuf has been suggested as a way to solve a political/organizational issue, not a code or platform issue.
Not having that functionality is a weakness of a language or its support tools at this point, to me.
Well I agree. Contract-first is great. You provide your clients with the specs and let them generate their own bindings. And as a client they're great too because I can also easily generate a mock server implementation that I can use in tests.