4 ms·

HTTP 1.1 was good for long, long time. It had major benefits like pure text protocol, that one could use even by doing telnet to webserver (I did that when I n

by krzyk 6y ago

HTTP 1.1 was good for long, long time. It had major benefits like pure text protocol, that one could use even by doing telnet to webserver (I did that when I needed to debug some pesky issues), starting with HTTP 2.0 it all goes to binary protocol (there is a text one, but almost no browser supports it :( ). And now, on top of that replace years of performance tuning TCP out of the window and use UDP, and invent TCP features on top of UDP. Yes, it is faster (few percent, this is not a 50% increase, it is a mere 3%), but the benefits will be reaped by the largest of corporations. Is it worth it? Maybe for end users (who will get their web page in 485 ms instead of 500ms), but for developers it is not. I was expecting HTTP 3.0 to get us huge benefits, but the numbers that were posted few days ago in hacker news are so underwhelming that I just don't care for it at all. And cost of development is high.

kxrm 6y ago
I am not sure I understand your concern, couldn't someone just develop a console app that can traverse the protocol? I am with you in the enjoyment of the simplicity of HTTP/1.1 but I don't agree that this particular concern is large enough to slow adoption.
- yc12340 6y ago
  It is a complex, stateful (!!) protocol with non-trivial state-machine. A "console app" won't cut it. Even Wireshark might not cut it. Thanks to things like quick start, TLS session tickets and server push you won't understand what are you even looking on 90% of time. When HTTP 1.1 fails, your browser shows you a proper error message. When HTTP 2/3 fails, it is always "a protocol format violation". What violation? Why? Who knows. > I don't agree that this particular concern is large enough to slow adoption Sure thing. Kerberos is still alive and kicking. SMB 1 is built into every appliance. SOAP is the protocol of choice for corporations... Complexity never slows down adoption of <insert name of utter turd technology>, because such technology is generally being pushed down people's throats by someone else. If Google does not push HTTP 3 slower, it's adoption won't slow down. The quality of tech plays no role in that.
  - kxrm 6y ago
    I disagree with the idea that this is being "pushed down people's throats". It's another protocol and nothing has been published stating that HTTP/1.1 support is going anywhere. A protocol format violation notice could tell you what was wrong it just hasn't been developed to the full extent to do so. Give browsers and tools time to develop and be built to properly debug the connection.
onion2k 6y ago
Maybe for end users (who will get their web page in 485 ms instead of 500ms), but for developers it is not. If the users see the benefit then the companies that the developers work for will find a new competitive advantage, which benefits the developers (higher profit, better job security, etc). It's impossible for one group to benefit without the other group also benefitting.
M2Ys4U 6y ago
>but the benefits will be reaped by the largest of corporations. What isn't? But you're also ignoring the fact that these benefits will also be reaped by end-users - and more by people who have poor connections to the Internet. >Is it worth it? Maybe for end users (who will get their web page in 485 ms instead of 500ms), but for developers it is not. The Internet is for End Users,[0] not for developers. UX >>> DX. [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8890 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8890
- krzyk 6y ago
  My concern is that the benefit is minor, 3% faster web page download? And I wrote that big corporations, because those have millions of users, if users download faster then they can server even more users on smaller amount of hardware. 3% less hardware, that might be big if you are big. And considering it is developed by Google and pushed into Chrome they will get that benefit sooner than others.
IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
I, too, like to tell tacky tales of telnet tweaking. Some of them are even true. But to consider those rare instances to be equal or exceeding the value of a significant across-the-board performance increase is ridiculous. As are your attempts at populism: even against specific arguments how the benefits are more meaningful for smaller websites, you repeat the assertion that “the benefits will be reaped by the largest of corporations”. At least you have the decency to immediately contradict yourself.
- jtbayly 6y ago
  > the value of a significant across-the-board performance increase Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
- krzyk 6y ago
  Please read section about comments at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Thanks
jeltz 6y ago
No, TCP has been bad for a long long time. TCP has never worked on dodgy internet connections. TCP often completely stalls on bad connections.

by krzyk 6y ago

kxrm 6y ago

I am not sure I understand your concern, couldn't someone just develop a console app that can traverse the protocol? I am with you in the enjoyment of the simplicity of HTTP/1.1 but I don't agree that this particular concern is large enough to slow adoption.

yc12340 6y ago
It is a complex, stateful (!!) protocol with non-trivial state-machine. A "console app" won't cut it. Even Wireshark might not cut it. Thanks to things like quick start, TLS session tickets and server push you won't understand what are you even looking on 90% of time. When HTTP 1.1 fails, your browser shows you a proper error message. When HTTP 2/3 fails, it is always "a protocol format violation". What violation? Why? Who knows. > I don't agree that this particular concern is large enough to slow adoption Sure thing. Kerberos is still alive and kicking. SMB 1 is built into every appliance. SOAP is the protocol of choice for corporations... Complexity never slows down adoption of <insert name of utter turd technology>, because such technology is generally being pushed down people's throats by someone else. If Google does not push HTTP 3 slower, it's adoption won't slow down. The quality of tech plays no role in that.
- kxrm 6y ago
  I disagree with the idea that this is being "pushed down people's throats". It's another protocol and nothing has been published stating that HTTP/1.1 support is going anywhere. A protocol format violation notice could tell you what was wrong it just hasn't been developed to the full extent to do so. Give browsers and tools time to develop and be built to properly debug the connection.

onion2k 6y ago

Maybe for end users (who will get their web page in 485 ms instead of 500ms), but for developers it is not. If the users see the benefit then the companies that the developers work for will find a new competitive advantage, which benefits the developers (higher profit, better job security, etc). It's impossible for one group to benefit without the other group also benefitting.

M2Ys4U 6y ago

>but the benefits will be reaped by the largest of corporations. What isn't? But you're also ignoring the fact that these benefits will also be reaped by end-users - and more by people who have poor connections to the Internet. >Is it worth it? Maybe for end users (who will get their web page in 485 ms instead of 500ms), but for developers it is not. The Internet is for End Users,[0] not for developers. UX >>> DX. [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8890 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8890

krzyk 6y ago
My concern is that the benefit is minor, 3% faster web page download? And I wrote that big corporations, because those have millions of users, if users download faster then they can server even more users on smaller amount of hardware. 3% less hardware, that might be big if you are big. And considering it is developed by Google and pushed into Chrome they will get that benefit sooner than others.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

I, too, like to tell tacky tales of telnet tweaking. Some of them are even true. But to consider those rare instances to be equal or exceeding the value of a significant across-the-board performance increase is ridiculous. As are your attempts at populism: even against specific arguments how the benefits are more meaningful for smaller websites, you repeat the assertion that “the benefits will be reaped by the largest of corporations”. At least you have the decency to immediately contradict yourself.

jtbayly 6y ago
> the value of a significant across-the-board performance increase Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
krzyk 6y ago
Please read section about comments at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Thanks

jeltz 6y ago

No, TCP has been bad for a long long time. TCP has never worked on dodgy internet connections. TCP often completely stalls on bad connections.