| That's a disingenuous and self contradictory description of how the OSI stack works. There are upwards guarantees at each layer that the stack makes. All implementations within the layer must be equal to the next layer even if one of the implementations provides capability of higher layers. Nothing is said however about adding further guarantees in layers 8, 9, 10, 11, 12...and so forth because they have already been made. I suppose I shouldn't use parity bits on serial connections then? "Not having to manage TCP allows a lot of useful JavaScript to be easily written" That's absurd. It makes no difference. As for UPnP, which I know well having written an entire UPnP stack, it's a broadcast messaging layer, not a connection based protocol. All the HTTP messages stay within the size of a UDP datagram and it is expected to be wholly unreliable. Even though it's ugly, it's hardly a comparison. I get the feeling a lot of people here are web developers with little experience of protocol stacks and not system programmers! |
If you're writing at the level of serial connections and parity, by all means pay attention to those details. If you're writing at higher level, consider abstracting away such details in an interface, library or module.
I miss Wildcat BBS as much as the next person: by which I mean, not very much. HN is full of really fucking smart people not the idiots implied by your comment.