[pgeorgi]

> for probably >6 months

The first real issues for XMPP came up about a decade after it was formalized. Matrix is too young to demonstrate how it will cope with unforeseen issues. E2E working? Mobile support? No surprise, both were must-have features when matrix started.

I have no idea what Matrix will be struggling with in a couple years, but that's exactly the point: nobody does.

Surely there will be a new client then whose developers, users and evangelists will point out how it's so much more seamless than Matrix, and don't we just let Matrix die and go for that newfangled thingy, but I'm not really eager to change my mode of communication every 10 years just because it's driven by the CADT model (https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html)

[jszymborski]

I take your point that we can't know if Matrix will stand the test of time because "future-proofing" is a lie, but we also need to acknowledge that XMPP was born at a time when instant messaging was in it's infancy. It came from the primordial sludge of BBS and IRC, and made something incrementally more usable by less technical crowds.

Matrix has had the benefit of years of mainstream IM adoption (thanks to the likes of XMPP!) to get an idea of what was needed in a federated IM protocol.

I think your CADT point is very dismissive. Matrix isn't just some rebranding of something old, it fixes legitimate issues... XMPP is just not usable with my non-technical friend group. They won't use it, I've tried. Matrix, on the other hand is friendly enough.

I can't tell you what Matrix will struggle with in a couple of years, but I'll tell you it'll be a subset of the things XMPP is struggling with at the moment.