4 ms·
> There were hundreds of people against it. Engineering is not a democracy. The technical merits of an argument are more important than how popular it is with
by philbo 9y ago
> There were hundreds of people against it.
Engineering is not a democracy. The technical merits of an argument are more important than how popular it is with arbitrary commenters on GitHub.
> Many voiced their refusals, they were also well-argued and politely put.
I read the comments on the node and requests issues and didn't see anything well-argued. Nothing said there refutes the substance of the request. Saying "but it doesn't do any harm" and then speculating about how the IETF should do things instead is not a coherent argument.
> On another note, isn't it important to have students think HTTP is fun?
Genuinely, it isn't.
- unimpressive 9y ago>Engineering is not a democracy. The technical merits of an argument are more important than how popular it is with arbitrary commenters on GitHub. The (frankly shallow) technical merit is that it gives us one less status code, in a problem space where if you really need that specific last status code so much that it's worth undoing a small piece of nearly 20 year old Internet culture to get it, the solution isn't to take that status code it's to switch the way you represent status codes entirely. I would make some comparison to scrounging for IPv4 blocks instead of switching to IPv6, but the growth rate of computers on the Internet and HTTP status codes aren't really comparable.
- zaxomi 9y agoOnly about 1/3 of the available codes in 4xx is currently used, so there is still plenty of space left.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- vertex-four 9y agoThe technical merits of the argument are... "we'll have to number our new error code 419, and that's bad because reasons".
- erdeszt 9y ago> because reasons Consistency comes to mind as a pretty good reason.
- vertex-four 9y agoThere's already a number of gaps in the error code space, so consistency doesn't actually seem a good reason.