Comment by hobohacker | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hobohacker | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Er, I thought I was agreeing with you. What do you think I'm arguing? To be clear, I view these two statements as grounded in the same logic, although perhaps one is more strongly worded than the other:

Yours - "So unless someone has the resources to test and deploy unstable web servers, it effectively means you shouldn't bother with spdy at this point."

Mine - "I think it's a fair assessment that supporting experimental technologies requires more engineering resources. Everyone has to do the cost/benefit analysis themselves."

Let me rephrase then:

Don't even bother building nginx 1.4 with spdy support or configuring it since no one can use it. From May 2013 until now there was a benefit to end-users. There no longer is.

If you want to provide the speed benefits of spdy to users, you now need to run unstable nginx or mod_spdy.

Right. I think the point is that you shouldn't be relying on experimental standards for one's web architecture unless you recognize its experimental status.

As an outside observer, it seems like this kind of pattern happens pretty regularly on HN. It's always kind of funny. There seems to be two distinct flavors:

Pattern 1:

    > Statement
    >> Counterstatement!
    >>> You're saying the same thing.
    >>>> I am? Oh. I *am*. Whoops!

Pattern 2:

    > Statement
    >> Agree with tone of disagreement.
    >>> Disagree on disagreement, while offering up facts to somehow agree *harder*
    >>>> Rebuttal, optional restatement of disagreement, optional statement(s) further
    >>>> reinforcing the common point on which we just can't agree to agree

Reply on news.ycombinator.com