libp2p - Update Implementations Chapter

[daviddias]

No description provided.

[dignifiedquire]

It would be nice if each of these parts had a list of implementations in the different languages attached to it, like this:

- abstract-transport [spec](link/to/spec) [go](link/to/go) [JS](link/to/js)

[jbenet]

if we're going to use the "abstract-X" modules for more than just javascript, can we:

• rename the convention to something like "X-interface" or "interface-X" or "libp2p-X" or "X-protocol" or "X-proto"
• use a programming language with types to define the interfaces (Go or Haskell ok for me)

---

• bikeshed discussion: "interface" is a well-understood concept across programming languages. the use of "abstract-X" in node/js makes up for javascript's lack of a type system, but will not be understood as readily by people in other languages. the right word for this in PL vocabulary is "protocol" or "interface". "protocol" is too general of a word and has so many meanings-- "interface" tends to be preferred these days.
• bikeshed link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_(object-oriented_programming)
• bikeshed trivia: "concepts" and "abstract base class" are two holdovers from C++ and friends (probably in typical disregard of "the type people")

[dignifiedquire]

👍 for defining types in Haskell from my side

---

bikeshed: 👍 for interface, 👎 for protocol (too generic, too much overlap with network protocols)

[daviddias]

I remember having this conversation and agreeing with you, should have added it as a TODO right away.

I like interface-X.

👍 for Haskell too, however, we will have a mapping for each language as implementations appear :)

[davidar]

👍 Haskell :)

[jbenet]

LGTM

[daviddias]

interfaces updated, merging :)