Marco claims that HTTP 2.0 is overly complex, but never gives any reasons why. He claims that text protocols are better than binary, but never really gives any

Marco claims that HTTP 2.0 is overly complex, but never gives any reasons why. He claims that text protocols are better than binary, but never really gives any reason for that either. Nostalgia for the days of telnet and gopher is not a reason. Then he goes off to talk about SOAP, which he hates, because "the only way [he] know[s] to hand-debug a SOAP transaction is with a hammer and a straitjacket." But SOAP is text based, which directly contradicts his argument from earlier. The other allegation here is that the new protocol "satisf[ies] what are essentially the needs of a small group of very influential players." Again, Marco just states this with no rationale at all. In fact, the opposite is true. By being more efficient, HTTP 2.0 will serve the needs of everyone. Should startups have to pay for 10 servers when they could have paid for 5 with HTTP 2.0? Apparently Marco thinks they should. It's easier for Google to pay for a few more servers than it is for Joe startup. This should be obvious to everyone, but apparently it's not. The whole binary versus text thing is a complete red herring. If you have ever used wireshark, you know that it makes binary fields easy to read. Binary protocols are easier to develop and standardize. Pretty much every good developer realizes this, and the responses here reflect that. The idea that making something LOOK like (but not actually be) "human text" makes anything better is an idea we should have buried along with COBOL and other mistakes from the past. But I guess not.