4 ms·
I mean, the reason I was discussing those specific aspects is that you're the one brought them up. You made the claim about how HTTP/2 was a "big bang" change.
by jsnell 2y ago
I mean, the reason I was discussing those specific aspects is that you're the one brought them up. You made the claim about how HTTP/2 was a "big bang" change. You're the one who made the claim that HTTP/2 was enforced on the ecosystem by Google.
And it seems that you can't support either of those claims in any way. In fact, you're just pretending that you never made those comments at all, and have once again pivoted to a new grievance.
But the new grievance is equally nonsensical. HTTP/2 is not particularly complex, and nobody on either the server or browser side was forced to implement it. Only those who thought the minimal complexity was worth it needed to do it. Everyone else remained fully interoperable.
I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from here, to be honest. Like, is your belief that there are no possible tradeoffs here? Nothing can ever justify even such minor amounts of complexity, no matter how large the benefits are? Or do you accept that there are tradeoffs, and are "just" disagree with every developer who made a different call on this when choosing whether to support HTTP/2 in their (non-Google) browser or server?
- lysace 2y agoEdit: this whole comment is incorrect. I was really thinking about HTTP 3.0, not 2.0. HTTP/2 is not "particularly complex?" Come on! Do remember where we started. > I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from here, to be honest. Like, is your belief that there are no possible tradeoffs here? Nothing can ever justify even such minor amounts of complexity, no matter how large the benefits are? Or do you accept that there are tradeoffs, and are "just" disagree with every developer who made a different call on this when choosing whether to support HTTP/2 in their (non-Google) browser or server? "Such minor amounts of complexity". Ahem. I believe there are tradeoffs. I don't believe that HTTP/2 met that tradeoff between complexity vs benefit. I do believe it benefitted Google.
- jsnell 2y ago"We" started from you making outlandish claims about HTTP/2 and immediately pivoting to a new complaint when rebutted rather than admit you were wrong. Yes, HTTP/2 is not really complex as far as these things go. You just keep making that assertion as if it was self-evident, but it isn't. Like, can you maybe just name the parts you think are unnecessary complex? And then we can discuss just how complex they really are, and what the benefits are. (Like, sure, having header compression is more complicated than not having it. But it's also an amazingly beneficial tradeoff, so it can't be what you had in mind.) > I believe there are tradeoffs. I don't believe that HTTP/2 met that tradeoff between complexity vs benefit. So why did Firefox implement it? Safari? Basically all the production level web servers? Google didn't force them to do it. The developers of all of that software had agency, evaluated the tradeoffs, and decided it was worth implementing. What makes you a better judge of the tradoffs than all of these non-Google entities?
- lysace 2y agoYeah, sorry, I mixed up 2.0 (the one that still uses TCP) with 3.0. Sorry for wasting your time.