4 ms·
That's a good point. How come we are still using http? I mean, the closest we've come AFAIK to something almost useful is ajax, but that's still not very good c
by LesZedCB 15y ago
That's a good point. How come we are still using http? I mean, the closest we've come AFAIK to something almost useful is ajax, but that's still not very good considering it's javascript... Maybe I'm unaware of some secret google development.
- batista 15y agoThere's Google's SPDY, but it doesn't fix all that we might like from HTTP, mostly performance stuff. I guess, it's the agreeing on something and then adopting it and then having it catch the market part that's making this difficult. On another field that I follow, we haven't had anything better replace MIDI for like 30 years...
- nazar 15y agoIs MIDI bad? I mean, why do you think it should be replaced? I am not familiar with this area but I am honestly interested!
- cageface 15y agoMIDI is very slow and has a very limited message set. There are better alternatives, like OSC, but it seems like the chances of the music industry collectively acting in its own best interest again and approving a new standard are very slim.
- batista 15y agoWell, the biggest limitation is that it has granularity of 0 to 256 for message data. That means if you want an analog like continuous change from 0 to max for some audio property, you get stepping instead. It's also not very fast for todays work with tons of channels. I doesn't know about audio at all, etc. OSC is a better replacement, but not widespread enough.