5 ms·
Comparing protocols like that is comparing apples to oranges, but I think I see your point. When people say 'I miss IRC', they don't necessarily mean the techn
by turminal 5y ago
Comparing protocols like that is comparing apples to oranges, but I think I see your point.
When people say 'I miss IRC', they don't necessarily mean the technicalities of the protocol though.
- root_axis 5y agoIt's not apples to oranges, it's directly analogous: both represent federated networks on the internet where users have the freedom to decide which client they want to use and which servers they want to connect to.
- turminal 5y agoThey are not analogous. IRC is a chat protocol with semantics suitable for a chat protocol. HTTP is at this point just a transport level thing for whatever you want to send. It doesn't have any significant semantic implications for sites like Twitter.
- root_axis 5y ago> HTTP is at this point just a transport level thing for whatever you want to send. So what? They're analogous not identical. The distinction you point out isn't relevant to the point of the analogy. You wrote: > switching to another network is literally as simple as pointing the client to a different domain name. irc and http are the same in this respect, thus they are analogous.