Yeah. I'm still not sold either. To add to your examples, Google claims resource sharding is bad and complex and "hacky", and criticize this for possibly break

Yeah. I'm still not sold either. To add to your examples, Google claims resource sharding is bad and complex and "hacky", and criticize this for possibly breaking client-side caching and invalidating HTTP proxy support. Then they move on to show how "wonderful" server-push is with the example of a request for index.html also pushing index.js and index.css, two files almost guaranteed to be cached more than 99% of the time. As if that doesn't break caching. So you have a possibly hacky thing you may do which may break something, which is bad. And then you have a new protocol feature causing the exact same problem. And that is good. Hey Google: Make up your mind, already! Yeah. Not sold at all. HTTP 2.0 is a terrible protocol, and not because it doesn't do enough, but because it does too much. It attempts to solve problems not belonging to the application layer. HTTP 1.x was a nice, simple, stateless text-mode protocol. This thing is a terrible, state-full, impossible-to-debug Rube Goldberg machine and has nothing in common with that simple and nice protocol whose name it attempts to piggyback on.