4 ms·

> Every app has to implement it itself rather than calling a syscall and letting the OS deal with its complexities I think for almost all developers, library s

> Every app has to implement it itself rather than calling a syscall and letting the OS deal with its complexities I think for almost all developers, library support for features is much more relevant than OS support anyway. How many of you are directly writing winsock code? Implementing it on UDP just means that you don't need to update a lot of ancient routers and firmware. I don't see "ossification" being a problem. Things haven't changed much at the transport layer because largely it just works.

josefx 5y ago
> Things haven't changed much at the transport layer because largely it just works. There is a reason this isn't built on top of TCP, because TCP has so many problems the moment you try to do anything non trivial with it. UDP on the other hand is kind of redundant since you already have IP packages, so you have a tiny package based protocol on top of a different package based protocol. Also you don't get any ordering information in UDP, which is kind of weird since the IP layer has to handle ordering to deal with package fragmentation, which is a fun feature that some hardware sees as a request to reorder your packages. I may have some PTSD from dealing with "smart" switches and a bit of software that did not expect package reordering issues on a tiny in house network.