Re: [hybi] Is there a traffic jam?

Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net> Tue, 14 April 2009 01:13 UTC

Return-Path: <prescod@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6B343A6800 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:13:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.279, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o2S8hSmbLDfl for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.229]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D67443A6765 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id k40so1991169rvb.49 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:14:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iR1gAAcXelY4h5XyQfBR3c3DR7Sg+Wr28Y1Q4z2w26U=; b=TbgWpsp0yBGwm0FFslLZ0Bje8jXF5X/VLOcIcu2A2WQz9hvOzSJ+skI9C6Edl/Then M9jZmxNG1SZAnShftzS2zqYPney99Ger3JGl9eFg/0M7ibO1LUDdvz1LwYZFcXcJua2D eFIz3nfy6vj7NxG+dSUPNE75HHJ6Lj5dRasPA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=D4/g0oXEQ1uh+zW7d7bWX3UnuwB1JnAOiEZwfHOD0NYpJd32kZxQK7RSAh46ysP/sB ggrtEWU5qkSGocCetIAtJt6GSXKiFe9zahnuc8eINGDNHb3ah5UcZ8leIhaKR7aVB2v3 KGB4Vqer92mortSI1a1wlKVtsigqovmPT9cl4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: prescod@gmail.com
Received: by 10.141.50.11 with SMTP id c11mr2981568rvk.45.1239671685900; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:14:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0904140053050.10339@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
References: <03BCE29D-7AA5-4128-9F61-446E0229479A@lindenlab.com> <E51D5B15BFDEFD448F90BDD17D41CFF105A0C46E@AHQEX1.andrew.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0904132352430.10339@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <E51D5B15BFDEFD448F90BDD17D41CFF105A0C476@AHQEX1.andrew.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0904140002360.10339@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <1cb725390904131712k292a4860pbd078bb251d3855b@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0904140031040.10339@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <1cb725390904131752u5842c039wb3d75602c479fa45@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0904140053050.10339@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:14:45 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 34cffb7d90a8d7d7
Message-ID: <1cb725390904131814o6040a8d3t637069a344d561bd@mail.gmail.com>
From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Is there a traffic jam?
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 01:13:35 -0000

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> ...
> To reiterate: I have no objection to there being many protocols
> standardised here. But I do want to make sure that at least one of them
> enables an inexperienced programmer to bang out an interactive toy in a
> few days without having to use libraries, just like they can bang out a
> CGI script today and get interaction in forms. Currently, of the various
> proposals, only one of them comes even close to this, IMHO.

You are moving the goal posts in a very unfair way.

You use the example of CGI scripts. Do you know anyone who runs CGI
scripts without Apache in front? The very definition of CGI is that it
is a tool that allows a front-end to handle the protocol and have a
back end handle the logic. If CGI is your example of a successful
technology, then HTTP is by analogy a protocol that has the right
level of complexity/power for its task.

Yes, you want your dad to write "WebSocket" scripts. I want my 12 year
old neighbour to be able to as well. Please do not assume that we have
different goals. But people like my twelve year old neighbour know CGI
and PHP. They do not know how to parse binary data coming in from a
socket. The humane thing to do is to PROVIDE a CGI or PHP or Rails
interface to the protocol. In substantially less time than it will
take to standardize a protocol, we could make Apache modules to
implement it. Surely this is better than telling them: "here's a
binary protocol. Good luck with that!"

You're constructing a completely unrealistic scenario, like when a
reality show tells a bunch of chefs that "for today's contest you may
not use knives!" Why would we ignore 30 years of computer engineering
experience that tells us that people can and should cooperate rather
than develop everything from scratch themselves? Do you expect your
Dad to write his own UTF-8 parser?

> I want to let 12 year olds write multiplayer games.

Please be very specific about HOW a 12-year old who knows PHP would
write a multiplayer game using PHP and WebSockets. Given how easy you
say it is, code samples would be appropriate. Tic Tac toe in
PHP/WebSockets would be a very helpful demonstration of the technology
and proposed programming model.

 Paul Prescod