3 ms·

Edit: 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 start

by lysace 2y ago

Edit: 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 ago
  Yeah, sorry, I mixed up 2.0 (the one that still uses TCP) with 3.0. Sorry for wasting your time.

by lysace 2y ago

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 ago
Yeah, sorry, I mixed up 2.0 (the one that still uses TCP) with 3.0. Sorry for wasting your time.