Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What's Wrong with IRC?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–96 of 96 posts

Re: Ask HN: What's Wrong with IRC?

#91

Post by crtasm »

jodrellblank wrote: post #87
crtasm wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see emoji on IRC every day btw :)

I'm sure you do see them, but having encodings consistent between sending client and receiving client isn't part of IRC; RFC 2812 - Internet Relay Chat: Client Protocol[1] says: > 2.2 Character codes > No specific character set is specified. The protocol is based on a > set of codes which are composed of eight (8) bits, making up an > octet. Each message may be composed of any number of these octets; > however, some…

Interesting, thanks. utf8 appears to work out fine in practice though.

Re: Ask HN: What's Wrong with IRC?

#92

Post by duskwuff »

elric wrote: post #83
duskwuff wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [server-side history] That's a feature, not a bug. Whatever your personal feelings on message history are, people and businesses need functionality like usable mobile clients they can receive messages in without keeping the client open continuously, or the ability for administrators to delete messages which have been sent by other users. IRC doesn't, and cannot , provide those features. > [no attachments] Good, no…

> people and businesses need functionality like usable mobile clients they can receive messages in without keeping the client open continuously Do they really, though? If Jim isn't at his desk and I still need to talk to him, I can just send him an email, or try again later. That is the part of communication that IRC excels at: fleeting conversations. IRC chat history is old-school FOMO.

> Do they really, though?

Yes. Usable mobile clients are table stakes for a modern messaging service. Caveats like "if you put your phone down for a few minutes you fall offline and any messages sent during that time are lost to you forever" are, quite simply, not acceptable.

It's not the year 2000 anymore. Not everyone is sitting at a desk in front of their computer eight hours a day. Software needs to adapt.

Re: Ask HN: What's Wrong with IRC?

#93

Post by nutrie »

doubled112 wrote: post #66
nutrie wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For Matrix, you can say "go to chat.company.com" and click log in with Google. And half of them logs in with their private Google account.

Usually not as bad as allowing personal GitHub accounts to be added company teams. Eventually somebody starts wondering who spikeycactusplant4589 is.

Trust me. It’s bad. Real bad. ‘Cause when it’s a startup, there are minimal restrictions. You can share what you want.

Re: Ask HN: What's Wrong with IRC?

#94

Post by progval »

jodrellblank wrote: post #87
crtasm wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see emoji on IRC every day btw :)

I'm sure you do see them, but having encodings consistent between sending client and receiving client isn't part of IRC; RFC 2812 - Internet Relay Chat: Client Protocol[1] says: > 2.2 Character codes > No specific character set is specified. The protocol is based on a > set of codes which are composed of eight (8) bits, making up an > octet. Each message may be composed of any number of these octets; > however, some…

The current IRC specification recommends UTF-8: https://modern.ircdocs.horse/#client-to-server-protocol-stru...

It is also possible for servers to tell clients only UTF-8 is allowed: https://ircv3.net/specs/extensions/utf8-only . This is the default of some server implementations.

Re: Ask HN: What's Wrong with IRC?

#96

Post by tcfhgj »

katze77 wrote: post #85
steveklabnik wrote: post #9

> Admittedly, I haven't used IRC much and I know the UI/UX isn't the best, I mean, you seem to understand what's wrong. IRC is meaningfully worse to use than Slack/Discord. So people use stuff that's nicer to use. > but that could probably be fixed pretty easily and tacked on to the existing messaging infrastructure? If it were easy, it would have already been done. "The UX isn't great" isn't a recent discovery, it's…

Yes, the fascinating thing about Matrix is that they have 30+ clients listed on their page of which none (!) implements all the features of the protocol — for instance, there is no client that supports E2E and multiple accounts. You would think instead of creating more than 30 sub-par clients it would make sense to create one that is actually good.

fluffychat supports both

And what you think, doesn't make any sense, because Matrix is an open protocol. Its like complaining about people making millions of websites, but not actually good ones.

Post reply on HN