4 ms·

If one side supports a feature, the other side doesn't, they're not interoperable.

by dchftcs 5y ago

grishka 5y ago
If one side supports a feature and the other doesn't, they're still interoperable, just without that feature.
- kmlx 5y ago
  how are they interoperable when one side uses a feature and the other doesn't support it? that's just degrading the experience... and this is just one small reason why the industry decided against moving forward with this decades ago. it simply didn't make any sense then, certainly doesn't make sense now.
  - grishka 5y ago
    > that's just degrading the experience... Uhhh yes? That's the point? The alternative to this degraded experience is no experience at all.
  - kmlx 5y ago
    > > that's just degrading the experience... > Uhhh yes? That's the point? The alternative to this degraded experience is no experience at all. so basically it's either degraded experience but w/ interoperability or great experience but w/o interoperability? that doesn't really make sense. why not a third way with great experience and great interoperability? i'm asking because i can guarantee that no one will use clients that provide a degraded experience when you've got the established players providing a great experience.
    - grishka 5y ago
      It's important for the capability to be there. The issue is that currently "established players" control that experience. In a saner world, experience needs to be decoupled from infrastructure. Somehow, ICQ worked wonderfully despite everyone I knew using an unofficial client. The official client (at least Windows one) was a terrible mess. It had ads and all those features no one ever asked for, like games and and news and an entire picture-based language (I'm not joking). But QIP, the client I used, only did the things I needed an ICQ client to do, and nothing more. It also had no ads.
    - Jenk 5y ago
      I used to use slack-term and/or Ripcord specifically I wanted the "degraded" experience - i.e., smaller resource footprint and none of the gimmicky nonsense.
  - michaelt 5y ago
    > how are they interoperable when one side uses a feature and the other doesn't support it? The answer to that is: It depends. For example, HTTP2 is basically an invisible upgrade which is faster (sometimes). If either end doesn't support it, falling back to a prior version is transparent to the user. On the other hand, if you want to update IRC to be more like Slack/Discord, with features like oauth2 login? Well then clients that don't support it won't be able to connect.
- humanrebar 5y ago
  Liked "If one side supports a feature and the other doesn't, they're still interoperable, just without that feature." -------- This is what my group chats look like when texting with iMessage users.
  - grishka 5y ago
    That's one way of doing it, a better one would be to hide the like button. Group chats over SMS? What kind of madness is that?
- dchftcs 5y ago
  Sometimes, one feature can break the entire experience. If one side decides to do encryption in a particular way, the other side doesn't, they can't talk to each other. Of course, you can choose to not do that encryption, but then that proves the point that the unified standard can hinder progress. Other than that, it can be death by a thousand cuts. If the rendering of a particular phrase relies on a specific custom feature, the other side might not see it properly. That can be multiplied by many times and make people frustrated, and worse, misunderstand each other.

If one side supports a feature, the other side doesn't, they're not interoperable.

grishka 5y ago

If one side supports a feature and the other doesn't, they're still interoperable, just without that feature.

kmlx 5y ago
how are they interoperable when one side uses a feature and the other doesn't support it? that's just degrading the experience... and this is just one small reason why the industry decided against moving forward with this decades ago. it simply didn't make any sense then, certainly doesn't make sense now.
- grishka 5y ago
  > that's just degrading the experience... Uhhh yes? That's the point? The alternative to this degraded experience is no experience at all.
- kmlx 5y ago
  > > that's just degrading the experience... > Uhhh yes? That's the point? The alternative to this degraded experience is no experience at all. so basically it's either degraded experience but w/ interoperability or great experience but w/o interoperability? that doesn't really make sense. why not a third way with great experience and great interoperability? i'm asking because i can guarantee that no one will use clients that provide a degraded experience when you've got the established players providing a great experience.
  - grishka 5y ago
    It's important for the capability to be there. The issue is that currently "established players" control that experience. In a saner world, experience needs to be decoupled from infrastructure. Somehow, ICQ worked wonderfully despite everyone I knew using an unofficial client. The official client (at least Windows one) was a terrible mess. It had ads and all those features no one ever asked for, like games and and news and an entire picture-based language (I'm not joking). But QIP, the client I used, only did the things I needed an ICQ client to do, and nothing more. It also had no ads.
  - Jenk 5y ago
    I used to use slack-term and/or Ripcord specifically I wanted the "degraded" experience - i.e., smaller resource footprint and none of the gimmicky nonsense.
- michaelt 5y ago
  > how are they interoperable when one side uses a feature and the other doesn't support it? The answer to that is: It depends. For example, HTTP2 is basically an invisible upgrade which is faster (sometimes). If either end doesn't support it, falling back to a prior version is transparent to the user. On the other hand, if you want to update IRC to be more like Slack/Discord, with features like oauth2 login? Well then clients that don't support it won't be able to connect.
humanrebar 5y ago
Liked "If one side supports a feature and the other doesn't, they're still interoperable, just without that feature." -------- This is what my group chats look like when texting with iMessage users.
- grishka 5y ago
  That's one way of doing it, a better one would be to hide the like button. Group chats over SMS? What kind of madness is that?
dchftcs 5y ago
Sometimes, one feature can break the entire experience. If one side decides to do encryption in a particular way, the other side doesn't, they can't talk to each other. Of course, you can choose to not do that encryption, but then that proves the point that the unified standard can hinder progress. Other than that, it can be death by a thousand cuts. If the rendering of a particular phrase relies on a specific custom feature, the other side might not see it properly. That can be multiplied by many times and make people frustrated, and worse, misunderstand each other.