undefined | Better HN

0 pointsstriking11y ago0 comments

Okay. Fair enough. I concede that efficiency is important and that SPDY / HTTP/2 can improve upon it. But I don't believe that this is worth the hype because the exposed featureset is otherwise tiny. Efficiency is cool, yes, but I'm personally waiting until HTTP/3 fixes the other wrong things with the Internet before I implement anything. I think the amount of effort that goes into this is not worth the result. Why include tons of small resources on your page if they're not necessary? Why revamp a protocol entirely if all you have to do is stop including tons of small resources?

0 comments

venaoy11y ago

> Okay. Fair enough. I concede that efficiency is important and that SPDY / HTTP/2 can improve upon it.

Great, I appreciate you recognize this.

> Why include tons of small resources on your page if they're not necessary?

But it _is_ necessary. In every single of the examples I gave in my reply to dlubarov, it is necessary:

- There are 100+ small images, icons, etc and all are displayed on the nytimes.com homepage.

- All of the thumbnail pictures of ebay items on a listing are displayed to the user.

- The 50+ maps tiles downloaded when browsing Google Maps are all necessary.

- Etc

You seem to fail to realize that in 2015, not every web page can be dumbed down to a blob of static HTML and no more than 2-3 images. The modern web is complex. We needed a protocol that can serve it efficiently.

enneff11y ago

It's not just web _pages_, either. Many people spend their days working in web applications, which HTTP/2 helps tremendously.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse