3 ms·
No disagreement here, but this was about flexibility, not an absolute judgement of how far-reaching a protocol must be. I think I like the idea of a "spec" ins
by wink 5y ago
No disagreement here, but this was about flexibility, not an absolute judgement of how far-reaching a protocol must be.
I think I like the idea of a "spec" inside the same "protocol" more. For example if you understand HTTP you can quickly reason about any spec of a REST API that's done with JSON payloads without caring for the HTTP wrapper layer, just as you don't care for TCP around it.
- ay 5y agotptacek’s original comment was amounting to “finger protocol is strictly worse than http” - which reads quite as an absolute judgement. Yeah, reusability and layering of engineering knowledge is useful - it makes dealing with complexity easier. But it also makes it easier to build complexity without spending thinking of a simpler solutions. Because time to market. And thus we have exhibits at https://mobile.twitter.com/internetofshit https://mobile.twitter.com/internetofshit