3 ms·
Troy's title could be argued to be misleading. The perfomance improvement he's discussing is actually HTTP/2 against HTTP. Typically browsers that support HTTP
by Spare_account 10y ago
Troy's title could be argued to be misleading. The perfomance improvement he's discussing is actually HTTP/2 against HTTP.
Typically browsers that support HTTP/2.0 require the use of TLS, so with a little mental gymnastics he's claiming that HTTPS is faster.
Edit: Apologies, I agonised over the wording for so long that 4 other people answered before me.
- mort96 10y agoWhat kind of mental gymnastics are you talking about? HTTP/2 is faster than HTTP/1. In practice, HTTP/2 requires TLS. Therefore, in practice, to get higher performance, you can achieve better performance with HTTPS than with HTTP.
- Latty 10y agoSure, but that's like saying "my wheels are faster than those", but they are faster because they only come attached to a ferrari. It's technically true, but it's also not really talking about what makes it faster. It is possible to do HTTP/2 without TLS, which would probably be faster. Now, in the real world, HTTP/2 is going to mean TLS - which is good, so yes, HTTPS will be faster in that case.
- Spare_account 10y agoNone of what you've said is incorrect. HTTP/2 over TLS is faster than HTTP/1.1 over SSL/TLS. I referred to Troy's assertion that "HTTPS is faster than HTTP", which is at best an incomplete statement and to some people completely misleading.