Re: UBF question

The key feature of UBF was that beyond being a serialization format, it was
also a contract checker.
That was a very nice feature. If you'd like to do something like that
today, perhaps you'd go for JSON or MessagePack encoding, JSON-Schema and
Jesse.

Needless to say, Joe's solution was far more elegant. It was also far less
supported, even when he was alive. Joe was always searching for the next
interesting challenge, and as memory serves, he parked UBF thinking that he
wasn't 100% satisfied with it. It didn't bother him to park something for a
decade while trying to address that final wrinkle.

BR,
Ulf W

[image: Vereign Seal]
<https://gmail.app.vereign.com/#CiAzy_GB8f6QvveZ4EbTaXoDdsWTb_ETB6W49Cwj1RyD1xIggbHUSgcbmAeIDsfNGcBv5GttvylTY3bzBmlLx8UQ6AA=>

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 7:45 AM <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> I haven't used Erlang, so I suppose my question is very naive. I read that
> UBF[1] is not maintained. So I am wondering what's used by Erlang as
> serialization format? Is there a new one that replaces UBF? Or UBF is still
> used as it, it's just not much change as it's stable?
>
> If there are UBF alternative options, what options are available?
>
> Many thanks
>
> [1]. https://github.com/ubf/ubf
>