I'm not seeing what makes this "modern". proto3 is only a few years old and nothing about it strikes me as unusually archaic. Protobuf in general isn't that much older than Go. I can see why Go-compatible syntax would be attractive to Go developers, so maybe that should be in the description rather than "modern"?
Not sure why I’d want to define a language independent interchange format in a language specific way and remove all of the tooling help at the same time. Why is this better? A why section/motivations would help greatly.
I'd be interested to see a "why?" section in your docs. In general I think making new "skins" for the same underlying tech is not a good thing. It fragments the ecosystem without any real business purpose. Is there some problem this addresses that is not already solved equally well by proto2 or proto3, besides that it doesn't look like a particular programming language?
We just pushed the first initial, public release of Gunk, a modern frontend and syntax for Protocol Buffers.<p>Check out releases here: <a href="https://github.com/gunk/gunk/releases/tag/v0.1.0" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/gunk/gunk/releases/tag/v0.1.0</a><p>Please note this is still extremely early / alpha stage, but we are soliciting feedback on our initial design. We hope to make this project useful to the greater developer community.
I don’t understand the purpose. The existing proto syntax is both easy to learn and language agnostic.<p>I’ve watched new devs pick it up in a matter of minutes.