12 ms·

And yet, it's a decent proxy. That, and the number of specs required (many of whom are locked behind IEEE, IEC etc. paywalls)

cxr 4y ago
Uh, no. It's a bad proxy, for the reasons just stated. As the spec gets more detailed, it gets easier to implement, not harder.
- giantrobot 4y ago
  A more detailed spec might have more concrete definitions but it also means more actual code for someone to write. An under-detailed spec you might have a case switch with a couple defined values and an undefined catch all. A super detailed spec just adds case statements and requires more code to handle them. The detail in the spec makes for lower cognitive load but the code still needs to be written and ideally tests written.
  - cxr 4y ago
    > A more detailed spec [...] means more actual code for someone to write. No, it doesn't. A detailed spec has the same amount of code to write as a spec for the same thing with less detail; for the types of specs relevant to this discussion, the primary requirement of "does what the other browsers do" exists whether the details are made explicit in the spec or not. More code is a consequence of an increase in requirements, not detail. In any case, neither circumstance is I/O bound to begin with.
    - giantrobot 4y ago
      No. If a spec doesn't define a behavior code can jump to some "undefined" handler which could be anything from a no-op to some quirks mode. Unless you're Microsoft writing specs "do what Word 97 does", copying the behavior of existing browsers is not a specification.
      - cxr 4y ago
        Please don't ignore the context. We are talking about Web browsers. You don't, in reality, have the latitude to do "anything from a no-op to some quirks mode" of your choice. The requirement is absolutely the one stated: to be compatible with what other browsers are doing. If your browser doesn't satisfy that requirement, then you break the Web, regardless of whether the spec is a hundred words or a hundred million. No amount of pointing at a standard and arguing that it doesn't specify clearly defined behavior in some area will ever be enough to teach a site to be able to say, "Oh, I'll just unbreak myself then so you can go ahead and view/use this page on your computer." Besides that, even if you were right—and to be clear, you aren't—that doesn't change the fact that, again, arguing for underspecification because "a couple defined values" isn't as much "actual code" that "still needs to be written" is an argument that approaches a problem that isn't I/O bound as if it is.

cxr 4y ago

Uh, no. It's a bad proxy, for the reasons just stated. As the spec gets more detailed, it gets easier to implement, not harder.

giantrobot 4y ago
A more detailed spec might have more concrete definitions but it also means more actual code for someone to write. An under-detailed spec you might have a case switch with a couple defined values and an undefined catch all. A super detailed spec just adds case statements and requires more code to handle them. The detail in the spec makes for lower cognitive load but the code still needs to be written and ideally tests written.
- cxr 4y ago
  > A more detailed spec [...] means more actual code for someone to write. No, it doesn't. A detailed spec has the same amount of code to write as a spec for the same thing with less detail; for the types of specs relevant to this discussion, the primary requirement of "does what the other browsers do" exists whether the details are made explicit in the spec or not. More code is a consequence of an increase in requirements, not detail. In any case, neither circumstance is I/O bound to begin with.
  - giantrobot 4y ago
    No. If a spec doesn't define a behavior code can jump to some "undefined" handler which could be anything from a no-op to some quirks mode. Unless you're Microsoft writing specs "do what Word 97 does", copying the behavior of existing browsers is not a specification.
    - cxr 4y ago
      Please don't ignore the context. We are talking about Web browsers. You don't, in reality, have the latitude to do "anything from a no-op to some quirks mode" of your choice. The requirement is absolutely the one stated: to be compatible with what other browsers are doing. If your browser doesn't satisfy that requirement, then you break the Web, regardless of whether the spec is a hundred words or a hundred million. No amount of pointing at a standard and arguing that it doesn't specify clearly defined behavior in some area will ever be enough to teach a site to be able to say, "Oh, I'll just unbreak myself then so you can go ahead and view/use this page on your computer." Besides that, even if you were right—and to be clear, you aren't—that doesn't change the fact that, again, arguing for underspecification because "a couple defined values" isn't as much "actual code" that "still needs to be written" is an argument that approaches a problem that isn't I/O bound as if it is.