4 ms·
> That's also the case with open protocols like IRC. No, it's not. > Sure you can write an IRC client with reaction emoji support, and it will look great in y
by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> That's also the case with open protocols like IRC.
No, it's not.
> Sure you can write an IRC client with reaction emoji support, and it will look great in your client, and anyone using a different client will just see garbage metadata.
Then you are bad at protocol design.
> You can only innovate by getting "everyone" to agree on a new standard, and that's hard.
No, you innovate by being backwards compatible with established standards.
Now, maybe IRC has reached the limits of its flexibility and should be replaced, I dunno, but the idea that it is somehow impossible to evolve protocols incrementally with partial adoption of new features is just bullshit.
- tom_mellior 7y agoI think you read too much into my post. I didn't claim anything about protocols in general. You yourself admit that it might not be flexible enough to evolve. It has certainly had a lot of time to try.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago> You yourself admit that it might not be flexible enough to evolve. I don't really think so, but I don't really know, I haven't every tried to do anything in that direction. > It has certainly had a lot of time to try. Except that people have to do it? As far as I am concerned, IRC is good enough, so I don't feel like putting any effort into "improving" anything, and it seems like a lot of people using IRC feel this way. Those who feel it's not good enough, though, seem to prefer building non-interoperable systems or just using proprietary lock-in vendors. Obviously, that's not gonna result in anything new in IRC.