Actually in terms of integrations and bridges XMPP is better, it was built for that from the very beginning, when it was perceived that there’ll be many-many proprietary IM networks and XMPP users will use bridges for those.
Sadly it’s losing popularity, but I don’t see Matrix popularity growing that fast or being that stable to say that it’s more relevant.
Personally I don’t like Matrix because all its clients I tried were for whatever reason very slow, fetching history was somehow a computatively-intensive task for them. So it’s just purely user perspective.
But I’ve seen its API, and that seems very nice and easy to use.
While XMPP has that, eh, 2000s industrial feel with lots of XML and extensions with bland numbers. Still, it’s now pretty clear which extensions are expected to be used by everyone, and it has nice clients like Psi.
More modern and offers broader usecases
Not a reason.
Elaborate?
Felt like since matrix was newer, it was more setup for all the integrations and bridges and the e2ee out of the box.
But since you forced me to read again about xmpp I’ve come back with this comment.
Yes, I agree with that.
Actually in terms of integrations and bridges XMPP is better, it was built for that from the very beginning, when it was perceived that there’ll be many-many proprietary IM networks and XMPP users will use bridges for those.
Sadly it’s losing popularity, but I don’t see Matrix popularity growing that fast or being that stable to say that it’s more relevant.
Personally I don’t like Matrix because all its clients I tried were for whatever reason very slow, fetching history was somehow a computatively-intensive task for them. So it’s just purely user perspective.
But I’ve seen its API, and that seems very nice and easy to use.
While XMPP has that, eh, 2000s industrial feel with lots of XML and extensions with bland numbers. Still, it’s now pretty clear which extensions are expected to be used by everyone, and it has nice clients like Psi.