Some common themes I have observed:
1. Why is this API using XML? It should be JSON.
2. Why are they using old shit? It should be new shit.
3. Why are they mixing new shit with old shit?
4. Why is the technology being used not fitting my sense of perfection and order?

What happens when JSON is the old shit? What happens when a new format is adopted that solves some corner case issues with JSON? What if those corner cases were solved by using XML, or a mix of XML and JSON? What happens when all the new shit is the old shit?

We will still be using the new old shit and listening to fucking noobs complain about mixing, matching, and abusing everything ever written. Oh JSON, how quaint and limited. Why did anyone ever use that? Fucking senior devs...

You use Json? didnt you know that toml over tftp is the new hot shit?

@stop
STFU, someone might believe this shit.

In the beginning we casting binary streams of data at the darkness. But these lacked schema, so we creates EDI, designed as a solution to arbitrary binary stream decomposition. But EDI was strict and inflexible and it wasn't "human readable," so we cooked up XML-RPC. This lacked structure guarantee so we coupled it with xml schemas. Xml schemas didn't assert validation and package identity, so we wrapped it in SOAP. SOAP was hard to configure, so we coupled it WSDL. WSDL didn't allow for composability, so we added WS-metadata exchange to facilitate it. But all the xml tech wasn't understood by browsers, so we started using json web services. Json was great, but it wasn't checkable, so we cooked up json schemas. Json schemas were great, but they weren't composable, so some dude at faceplant cooked up graphql. And then toml tried to be a thing, and so on and lol.

And all that shit is slow and primitive in both structure, surety and compression, so the ascended somewhere in the middle of all this shit signal to noise ratio started using protocol buffers and lived happily ever after ;)

Coincidentally I am reading about MessagePack...

@metamourge then how about an json-to-malbolge encryptor written in malbolge?

@stop What about using a sandboxed lua transport?

@Demolishun with an in malbolge lua interpreter?

@SortOfTested Isn't the next step an actual transport language that is sandboxed though? Or does that just scream opening a can of worms?

@Demolishun
Violates SRP a little. You could define a transport theoretically that had a way to canonically define a data scheme as hashsets, but it would still require client or server decomposition and understanding of the data types.

Stream + schema. Streama?TM

.proto is the new shit now