←back to thread

422 points km | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.293s | source
Show context
perching_aix ◴[] No.41831129[source]
Well, at least the title is honest. Straight up asking people to break standards out of sheer conviction is a new one for me personally, but it's definitely one of the attitudes of all time, so maybe it's just me being green.

Can we ask for the typical *nix text editors to disobey the POSIX standard of a text file next, so that I don't need to use hex editing to get trailing newlines off the end of files?

replies(4): >>41831233 #>>41831275 #>>41831592 #>>41833146 #
rkeene2 ◴[] No.41831275[source]
People don't seem to mind when Chrome does it [0]. The response "standards aren't a death pact" stands out in particular.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13860682

replies(2): >>41831414 #>>41833103 #
akira2501 ◴[] No.41833103[source]
Death pact? Jeez. Standards simply prevent people from having to waste time debugging dumb issues that rightfully could have been avoided.
replies(1): >>41834554 #
eviks ◴[] No.41834554[source]
They also add to the time wasted by not removing needless complexity in due time
replies(1): >>41835297 #
akira2501 ◴[] No.41835297[source]
The complexity of CRLF?

The balance here, of course, being backwards compatability. I'd sooner kill EBCDIC, bad ASCII and Code Pages than worry about CRLF if we didn't have to care about ancient systems.

Programming languages still retain C's operator precedence hierarchy even though it was itself meant to be a backwards compatible compromise and leads to errors around logical operator expressions.

Anyways, this article is about actively breaking systems like some kind of protocol terrorist in order to achieve an outcome at any cost, if it was merely along the lines of "CRLF considered harmful in new protocols" I'd have nothing to say.

replies(1): >>41836400 #
eviks ◴[] No.41836400[source]
> The complexity of CRLF?

You didn't limit your general admiration of standards to CRLF, so no, not only that.

> about actively breaking systems like some kind of protocol terrorist in order to achieve an outcome at any cost,

That's simply false, he isn't

> Almost all implementations of these protocols will accept a bare NL as an end-of-line mark, even if it is technically incorrect.

replies(2): >>41836786 #>>41841064 #
1. LegionMammal978 ◴[] No.41836786[source]
> Almost all implementations of these protocols will accept a bare NL as an end-of-line mark, even if it is technically incorrect.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41832555 as far as HTTP/1.1 goes, it's definitely common but far from universal. The big problem with "it's 100% safe to make this change, since it doesn't break anything I know about" is that there are always a lot of things you don't know about, not all of which can be boiled down to being negligible weirdos.