Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>HTML and HTTP were successful because they were incredibly easy to understand. I wish we could keep it that way.

The web is big enough today that we can afford to make it more efficient since we have so many professionals that don't require the kind of implicit hand-holding provided by the original implementations. Back then everyone was a newbie and there were no web professionals.



I think we need to be careful about claiming its more efficient. There seemed to be significant disagreement about how much more efficient SPDY was last year from the various different benchmarks. From memory the consensus seemed to be that its only 5-10% quicker. Does anyone have any more up to day benchmarks?

I hate the idea that you would have to be a "web profesional" in order to get started today. We should embrace and keep the culture the web was built on.


That's an incredibly good way to lock out new newbies. I don't know how many people I know who got into programming through web development. Just because existing web developers don't necessarily need a simple solution doesn't mean new web developers couldn't take advantage of it.


For what it's worth, I started messing with HTML in elementary school, but had no idea how simple HTTP/1.0 was until I hit the 400 level classes in college. Editing in Notepad was the only way to go back then: even Dreamweaver got too complicated. Likewise, my first foray into JMS/message-queue type stuff was with STOMP, the simple text-oriented message protocol: there was no way I was going to understand the 'open wire protocol' for ActiveMQ. Ain't got time for that!

All that said, I think peterwwillis is right: http/X.0, as long as it's well-simplified, is better in binary than it is in text. Ideally, there's a bijection between your text-mode and binary-mode (like a lens), where it's easy to parse (rely on your toolset to do the translation back and forth) and easy to put on the wire. Forth is a good example of how to do it sanely.


Really? I can't imagine anything they might do putting this out of the reach of say a sophomore C-S student or a motivated independent learner.


A lot of current professionals started out as 11- and 12-year-olds dodging COPPA to host their first HTML web sites, not CS sophomores.


>A lot of current professionals started out as 11- and 12-year-olds dodging COPPA to host their first HTML web sites, not CS sophomores.

I would put those 11 and 12 year old down under "motivated independent learner"

If your concern is the a binary HTTP, too bad, it already here, its called HTTPS. It does seem to be holding anyone back.

If your concern is a binary HTML/compiler for it, I don't by that either. I was using a compiler when I was 8 years old and didn't have a problem with it conceptually.


HTTPS is HTTP over a TLS connection, not a binary version of HTTP.


Obviously, but hits take very helpful to look at HTTPS over something like wireshark. That was my point.


Yesterday, I showed a classroom full of high school kids HTML and CSS. They were so excited to be building stuff, and thought it was so neat that the text would turn into a web page.

Just because we have more 'professionals' today doesn't mean everyone is a professional.


I think to get maximum innovation on anything technology related, it should always be simple enough to get started at any level, then as you gain more experience you can (and the specs allow you to now -- AS2/EDIHTTP spec for one has encryption, compression, on top of HTTP/HTTPS - http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4130) do more for performance, optimization etc otherwise it is premature optimization and a bit of a wall.

Like with gaming, each game should be simple to start but deeper to master. That is what this layer is all about, lower down the OSI stack it is much more of a wall to beginners. Never lock out beginners as they can be better masters with time, don't hide the entrance to the labyrinth. Leave things as approachable, but with better professional experience, modifiable to perform better. We have all that now, a competing binary protocol will never see the innovation that a more simple one like HTTP will. Higher up the stack you can see how this was better for exchanging data in standard ways from old school binary blobs, to CSV files, to XML files, to JSON. Same reason REST services won over SOAP, simplify... There is a JSON binary format BSON in mongo and also MessagePack but guess which one is used more in service/exchanging data the textual one or the binary ones? The binary formats work well in certain situations where both endpoints are controlled by the same entity.

Binary and more locked down/optimized formats and messaging have their place but the start/base should always focus on simplicity over optimization.

The general rule in exchanging via standards is be liberal in what you accept, conservative in what you send. Being all binary all the time is a backwards step and is conservative on what is accepted, I also think it would lead to a host of difficult to debug problems just based on work I did with AS2/HTTP RFC implementation one of them being streaming and of course encoding/decoding which can fill hours of work if you can't visually see the content at some level.


But I don't think we should be raising the barrier to entry and making it more difficult for a young hacker to get started. Like the above commenter I started hacking around with HTML and CSS when I was around 12 and it led me into linux/python/php/web frameworks.

There's something beautiful about being able to teach someone how to write a basic HTML document in 20 minutes. My mother can easily understand what HTML is doing, I doubt she'd understand a compiler.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: