3 ms·

Ok - so now you have a very strict protocol, that never gains traction because the strictness you value hampers utility. And yes - I'm aware of the "Bug for bu

Ok - so now you have a very strict protocol, that never gains traction because the strictness you value hampers utility. And yes - I'm aware of the "Bug for bug compatibility" problems that draft tries to highlight, but it's fairly clear that utility is paramount: > As [SUCCESS] demonstrates, success or failure of a protocol depends far more on factors like usefulness than on on technical excellence. Timely publication of protocol specifications, even with the potential for flaws, likely contributed significantly to the eventual success of the Internet.

TeMPOraL 5y ago
> Ok - so now you have a very strict protocol, that never gains traction because the strictness you value hampers utility. Well, things shouldn't be like that. This is the collective insanity of our industry - standardizing on tools that are easiest to work with when you don't understand them and are under time pressure to cut corners. It's the opposite of good engineering.
- horsawlarway 5y ago
  > Well, things shouldn't be like that. Ain't that the story of this planet. That said - I'm not really sure you can call it bad engineering. It turns out that people will use whatever is available to suit their needs (and god help you if you try to predetermine all the strange edge-cases they'll use it for... https://xkcd.com/1172/ https://xkcd.com/1172/). For every one developer that's had to debug a json parser compatibility issue, there are probably a million other developers happily solving real world problems with JSON with no issues at all.