[kuschku]

> weak extension support

Which definitely doesn’t apply to IRC

> lack of identity

Which the CAP Account extension allows to provide

> strong capabilities for bridging between protocols

And a Matrix-IRC bridge that constantly breaks, doesn’t properly handle private messages, and which badly handles IRC extensions?

[qwertyuiop924]

IRC bots are a hack, and so much is provided by extensions, that there's no guarantee that your client will support basic features.

CAP Account is just that: an extension. It's not inherent to the protocol, and it shows.

And I didn't say the present bridges were perfect yet. The project is still a ways from completion.

[kuschku]

> It's not inherent to the protocol, and it shows.

IRC extensions are supported by over 90% of clients already, and provide exactly that.

In contrast to XMPP is IRC actually renewing itself in production.

http://IRCv3.net/

EDIT: I can’t answer you right now (you are submitting too fast), so here is my answer inline:

> I’ll show the list of extensions both supported by every modern client, and each of the networks you mentioned:

> freenode: sasl, account-notify, identify-msg, multi-prefix, extended-join

> efnet: multi-prefix

> quakenet: none

> Hackint: invite-notify, cap-notify, chghost, echo-message, userhost-in-names, account-notify, server-time, account-tag, multi-prefix, extended-join, away-notify, tls, sasl

> Snoonet: away-notify, sasl, account-notify, invite-notify, userhost-in-names, multi-prefix, extended-join

> Mozilla: sasl, userhost-in-names, multi-prefix

> EsperNet: away-notify, sasl, account-notify, multi-prefix, extended-join, tls

> Also, support for extensions by server: http://ircv3.net/software/servers.html

> And by client: http://ircv3.net/software/clients.html

> Any more questions?

[qwertyuiop924]

XMPP is radically different from IRC. And I don't know about you, but I don't see a lot those extensions in use on actually servers (freenode, efnet, quakenet, etc).