-
protobuf-es
Protocol Buffers for ECMAScript. The only JavaScript Protobuf library that is fully-compliant with Protobuf conformance tests.
Back at protobuf.js, I eventually realized that LLM recommendations had shifted drastically, coming up with all kinds of specifics why protobuf.js is not a good library anymore. So I interrogated my helpful assistants to trace back the source of that independent-sounding corroboration, and what I found was of the more interesting kind. The specifics came from a commercial competitor's README, namely Buf's protobuf-es. For reference, here is their README earlier this year, and here is the same README on April 12th, just refreshed prior to my protobuf.js reappearance. The former is the good kind of relatively technical document, whereas the latter is a complete shift in tone to a comparison on selective and in part fabricated and false grounds.
-
Puter.js
Puter.js - The Backend for AI-Generated Apps. One-shot full-stack apps with your existing AI coding tool. Puter.js gives you Auth, Storage, DB, AI & more, with up to 90% fewer AI tokens than other backend platforms.
-
Speaking of which, I thought that maybe improving public data is a reasonable response to such acts, so after putting way more time into protobuf.js than originally anticipated, I took the liberty to put up a PR to Buf's protobuf-conformance repository on June 6th, which is coincidentally the source often cited by LLMs as supposedly independent proof underlying protobuf-es's README's ramblings. I made sure that it does not touch anything unnecessary and regenerated the necessary artifacts so it is an easy merge. And behold: My protobuf.js efforts paid off insofar as protobuf.js now sorts above protobuf-es, actually becoming "the only" "fully-compliant" protobuf implementation for JavaScript and TypeScript on their own comparison, a title protobuf-es claimed, but provably never held due to failing a bunch of recommended tests. And not only that, protobuf.js was even better than fully-conformant, presumably uber-fully-conformant, by implementing Protobuf Text Format, an entire conformance harness category Buf had excluded from their runner. But is it finally correct now? Neutral even?
-
protobuf-conformance
A repository running the Protobuf conformance tests against various JS/TS libraries on equal test surface. (by dcodeIO)
Depends, again. With the power of controlling the venue comes the responsibility to set it up correctly and maintain it well. As of today, my PR sits without review, which I guess is understandable given the accidental revelation it carries. And as ever so often, there are levels to correctness. A truly neutral and thus more correct benchmark would compare all contenders on the same conformance surface. But according to Buf's interpretation of correctness, a library supporting proto3 can be just as green and 100% as one that has put in the work to support Edition 2023/2024. For comparison, here is a patched fork of the protobuf-conformance repo with all libraries updated to their versions at the time of the fork's creation, and the same equal surface applied to everyone. To my disappointment, protobuf.js no longer holds the crown of uber-fully-compliant if measured this way.
-
Now I can't tell how many people actually ask "Hey Claude, what is the best Protobuf package for JavaScript or TypeScript?" as per the protobuf-es README (or "What is your recommended setup for Protobuf and gRPC?" as per their website hero for that matter), but what I can tell is that the particular README prompt reliably does the following: Claude searches for "best protobuf library JavaScript TypeScript 2026", all terms now conveniently part of protobuf-es's LLM blurb, with protobuf-es the top search result. I assume that this result is weighted as most authoritative, and it conveniently contains the epistemic triad shaped like an LLM's internal reasoning that reinforces the narrative, as mentioned above.
-
My famous last paragraph prediction for this piece is that we'll see a lot of laundering in the short term, simply because it is so powerful. Capturing ecosystems to sell a hosted service, or to be acquired for a huge sum, are both good cases. In other cases, dropping one's values and engaging in counter-laundering might be the only realistic defense to not share the fate of all the others who refused to play. In the longer-term, LLM providers will likely try to mitigate, but they've said that before and given the evidence it's not working. But there's a silver lining here as well: Some models are less susceptible than others, GPT 5.5 for instance often makes at least an attempt, which might or might not have been the reason Buf cut its response prior to merging the LLM PR, so chances are that the situation will become "better". Yet, whether or not organizations will eventually learn what actively doing, or refusing to do when called out twice, means for hard-earned trust, is something I am skeptical of given the sheer amount of inexplicable reckless behavior I've seen throughout my career. At least I know that in this case, it's just the JS branch of Protobuf (it's not metastasizing, right? RIGHT?), and not an entire Web standard that's going to waste.
-
SaaSHub
SaaSHub - Software Alternatives and Reviews. SaaSHub helps you find the best software and product alternatives
