You are correct about the first assumption, but even without encryption dealing with multiplexing significantly complexify things, so I still stand by that statement.
If you assume no multiplexing, you can write a much simpler server.
If you assume no multiplexing, you can write a much simpler server.
> it's not http/2 fault, but rather ruby
My post is to be read primarily in the context of Ruby, as the intro clearly explains it. I'm not the one who posted it here, it really isn't intended for the HN audience. I would never submit my posts here.
Many of my points are more general than just Ruby-centric, but yes, if your stack of choice have very good support for HTTP/2 I'm not saying not to use it in your DC.
My point is that as a Ruby user, there isn't much reason to lament over the lack of HTTP/2 support in Puma or some other servers.