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

HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)

http2.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 89 posts

Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)

#31

Post by mseebach »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #23
sdegutis wrote: post #5

This play on words is a pretty okay joke.

I'm cringing currently. It seems funny now, but in ten years, it'll be as funny as a Java class file's header being 0xCAFEBABE is.

I'd much rather have a joke that doesn't age well than a completely wit-less corporate committee specification.

0xCAFEBABE isn't laugh-out-loud funny (not sure it ever was), but I find it a comforting reminder that Java was actually written by humans. The "Duke" mascot, too. It's not at all hard to imagine an underemployed middle manager learning about it and demanding it being changed, in fear that the Important and Serious people who would write Important and Serious software in Java would think it's not an Important and Serious language.

Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)

#32

Post by diminoten »

mseebach wrote: post #31
EdwardDiego wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm cringing currently. It seems funny now, but in ten years, it'll be as funny as a Java class file's header being 0xCAFEBABE is.

I'd much rather have a joke that doesn't age well than a completely wit-less corporate committee specification. 0xCAFEBABE isn't laugh-out-loud funny (not sure it ever was), but I find it a comforting reminder that Java was actually written by humans. The "Duke" mascot, too. It's not at all hard to imagine an underemployed middle manager learning about it and demanding it being changed, in fear that the Important and…

0xCAFEBABE is (I can't believe I'm going to do this) vaguely sexist though, so the cringe for me, at least, is thinking about my daughter reading that and thinking her father came up with it, and thus believing "BABE" is the kind of phrase dad would use to describe women in general.

Or maybe I'm over-reacting. No idea.

Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)

#33

Post by mseebach »

diminoten wrote: post #32
mseebach wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd much rather have a joke that doesn't age well than a completely wit-less corporate committee specification. 0xCAFEBABE isn't laugh-out-loud funny (not sure it ever was), but I find it a comforting reminder that Java was actually written by humans. The "Duke" mascot, too. It's not at all hard to imagine an underemployed middle manager learning about it and demanding it being changed, in fear that the Important and…

0xCAFEBABE is (I can't believe I'm going to do this) vaguely sexist though, so the cringe for me, at least, is thinking about my daughter reading that and thinking her father came up with it, and thus believing "BABE" is the kind of phrase dad would use to describe women in general. Or maybe I'm over-reacting. No idea.

Yes, you're overreacting. Babe is an endearing term. It's sexist only in the sense that it identifies the gender of the subject of endearment.

Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)

#34

Post by nailer »

diminoten wrote: post #32
mseebach wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd much rather have a joke that doesn't age well than a completely wit-less corporate committee specification. 0xCAFEBABE isn't laugh-out-loud funny (not sure it ever was), but I find it a comforting reminder that Java was actually written by humans. The "Duke" mascot, too. It's not at all hard to imagine an underemployed middle manager learning about it and demanding it being changed, in fear that the Important and…

0xCAFEBABE is (I can't believe I'm going to do this) vaguely sexist though, so the cringe for me, at least, is thinking about my daughter reading that and thinking her father came up with it, and thus believing "BABE" is the kind of phrase dad would use to describe women in general. Or maybe I'm over-reacting. No idea.

As a dude whose girl calls him babe, yes you're overreacting.

Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)

#35

Post by andyhmltn »

diminoten wrote: post #32
mseebach wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd much rather have a joke that doesn't age well than a completely wit-less corporate committee specification. 0xCAFEBABE isn't laugh-out-loud funny (not sure it ever was), but I find it a comforting reminder that Java was actually written by humans. The "Duke" mascot, too. It's not at all hard to imagine an underemployed middle manager learning about it and demanding it being changed, in fear that the Important and…

0xCAFEBABE is (I can't believe I'm going to do this) vaguely sexist though, so the cringe for me, at least, is thinking about my daughter reading that and thinking her father came up with it, and thus believing "BABE" is the kind of phrase dad would use to describe women in general. Or maybe I'm over-reacting. No idea.

Pretty sure you're over-reacting. The term isn't remotely sexist.

Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)

#36

Post by troels »

bitwize wrote: post #10
RyanZAG wrote: post #7

The complexity difference between HTTP1 and HTTP2 is pretty huge. Not sure if they're even remotely the same protocol anymore.

The old Unix model (simple, do one thing, text formats, etc.) is dead. The world has come to prefer code and protocols which perform well at scale.

At scale .. Wait - You're trolling, right? Nice try - Almost fell for it.

Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)

#37

Post by noptic »

sdegutis wrote: post #5

This play on words is a pretty okay joke.

It is ok because it makes sense. Unlike other (stupid) acronym jokes, GTFO describes the purpose very well. It is funny the first time you read and usefull because you can renember/recognice it better than TS.

Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)

#38

Post by LaGrange »

mseebach wrote: post #33
diminoten wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

0xCAFEBABE is (I can't believe I'm going to do this) vaguely sexist though, so the cringe for me, at least, is thinking about my daughter reading that and thinking her father came up with it, and thus believing "BABE" is the kind of phrase dad would use to describe women in general. Or maybe I'm over-reacting. No idea.

Yes, you're overreacting. Babe is an endearing term. It's sexist only in the sense that it identifies the gender of the subject of endearment.

> Babe is an endearing term.

No it’s not. It’s only claimed to be by the users for plausible deniability, which actually makes it extra-bad.

> Yes, you're overreacting.

No, they’re not. But the three people jumping out and screaming „overreacting” and „endearing” probably are panicking.

Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)

#39

Post by anon4 »

diminoten wrote: post #32
mseebach wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd much rather have a joke that doesn't age well than a completely wit-less corporate committee specification. 0xCAFEBABE isn't laugh-out-loud funny (not sure it ever was), but I find it a comforting reminder that Java was actually written by humans. The "Duke" mascot, too. It's not at all hard to imagine an underemployed middle manager learning about it and demanding it being changed, in fear that the Important and…

0xCAFEBABE is (I can't believe I'm going to do this) vaguely sexist though, so the cringe for me, at least, is thinking about my daughter reading that and thinking her father came up with it, and thus believing "BABE" is the kind of phrase dad would use to describe women in general. Or maybe I'm over-reacting. No idea.

Actually CAFE is the sexist part, given how it's the choice of drink for macho herd-rearing cowboys who famously see women as little more than trophies. And really, 0 is obviously a vagina, while x is a symbol for a butthole. 0xCAFE then, is two cowboys gangraping a barmaid. BABE is really the least sexist part of that signature.

Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)

#40

Post by rrmm »

meowface wrote: post #11
RyanZAG wrote: post #7

The complexity difference between HTTP1 and HTTP2 is pretty huge. Not sure if they're even remotely the same protocol anymore.

Agreed. This spec reads more like a brand new and complex transport protocol than an application one. Is it HTTP 2.0's plan to completely replace "middleware" like SPDY with a full featured protocol?

The complexity is not horrible as far as communications protocols go.

Anyone know what working implementations exist currently?

Ideally, it'd be nice to see actual real world data showing the benefits over http 1.1.

Post reply on HN