3 ms·

> Cookies today have a really bad reputation, and many people are saying we shouldn't even have cookies at all. The bad reputation is qualified because cookies

> Cookies today have a really bad reputation, and many people are saying we shouldn't even have cookies at all. The bad reputation is qualified because cookies have achieved 100% technological obsolescence. Here is the previous comment where I mentioned this and people wanted but failed to prove it wrong: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23098196 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23098196

Normal_gaussian 7y ago
The reliance on JavaScript, which a reasonable minority disable, is a valid rebuttal. Your reply that cookies can also be disabled fails to address this as client side JavaScript and cookies provide overlapping, not equivalent, capabilities.
- austincheney 7y ago
  Not exactly. It says either technology can be equally invalidated by the user with the same level of effort, which makes the “disabled JavaScript” rebuttal particularly weak. In practice, though, what percentage of users disable JavaScript where cookies are used?
  - Normal_gaussian 7y ago
    Particularly with modern cookie management- most disabled JS users allow first party cookies.
    - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
      Self-destructing cookies make sites usable but denies them use of an easy tracking tool. It would be nice if Firefox added this as an optional built in feature to complement the 3rd party cookie blocking. 99% of the cookies you receive don't need to be persistent so why keep them around.
goto11 7y ago
In the context of privacy and GDPR, I don't really see the difference. Cookies can be used to track sessions, so can LocalStorage. Cookies are much move convenient for tracking though since they are automatically passed on every request. But if cookies were somehow curtailed (which will not happen), trackers would switch to using LocalStorage or some other mechanism in no time.
- austincheney 7y ago
  All I am saying is that cookies are obsolete. The primary reason cookies are still preferred is due to developer ignorance.
  - goto11 7y ago
    But what do you mean "obsolete"? They are still by far the simplest solution for passing a session ID with all HTTP requests.
    - austincheney 7y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolescence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolescence Obsolescence just means the technology in question is antiquated or fully capable of replacement by something of greater preference. As a functional term it has no bearing on frequency of use or popularity.
      - goto11 7y ago
        So you mean, why use a simple solution when a newer, more complex solution is available?
        austincheney 7y ago
        Aside from their APIs they are both of equal complexity. Cookies have a far more complex API. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Document/cookie https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Document/co... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity Perhaps you instead meant to use the word challenging, which is subjective depending upon who you ask.

Normal_gaussian 7y ago

The reliance on JavaScript, which a reasonable minority disable, is a valid rebuttal. Your reply that cookies can also be disabled fails to address this as client side JavaScript and cookies provide overlapping, not equivalent, capabilities.

austincheney 7y ago
Not exactly. It says either technology can be equally invalidated by the user with the same level of effort, which makes the “disabled JavaScript” rebuttal particularly weak. In practice, though, what percentage of users disable JavaScript where cookies are used?
- Normal_gaussian 7y ago
  Particularly with modern cookie management- most disabled JS users allow first party cookies.
  - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
    Self-destructing cookies make sites usable but denies them use of an easy tracking tool. It would be nice if Firefox added this as an optional built in feature to complement the 3rd party cookie blocking. 99% of the cookies you receive don't need to be persistent so why keep them around.

goto11 7y ago

In the context of privacy and GDPR, I don't really see the difference. Cookies can be used to track sessions, so can LocalStorage. Cookies are much move convenient for tracking though since they are automatically passed on every request. But if cookies were somehow curtailed (which will not happen), trackers would switch to using LocalStorage or some other mechanism in no time.

austincheney 7y ago
All I am saying is that cookies are obsolete. The primary reason cookies are still preferred is due to developer ignorance.
- goto11 7y ago
  But what do you mean "obsolete"? They are still by far the simplest solution for passing a session ID with all HTTP requests.
  - austincheney 7y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolescence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolescence Obsolescence just means the technology in question is antiquated or fully capable of replacement by something of greater preference. As a functional term it has no bearing on frequency of use or popularity.
    - goto11 7y ago
      So you mean, why use a simple solution when a newer, more complex solution is available?
      - austincheney 7y ago
        Aside from their APIs they are both of equal complexity. Cookies have a far more complex API. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Document/cookie https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Document/co... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity Perhaps you instead meant to use the word challenging, which is subjective depending upon who you ask.