For a crash course would the code examples have been better in something like Python rather than Rust?
The HTTP crash course nobody asked for
41–50 of 149 posts
Re: The HTTP crash course nobody asked for
#42For a crash course would the code examples have been better in something like Python rather than Rust?
Nope, that’s the author’s favourite language. A regular reader would expect rust to be used like in previous articles
Re: The HTTP crash course nobody asked for
#43For a crash course would the code examples have been better in something like Python rather than Rust?
My whole thing is that I'm teaching Rust /while/ solving interesting, real-world problems (instead of looking at artificial code samples), so, if someone wants to write the equivalent article with Python, they should! I won't.
Re: The HTTP crash course nobody asked for
#44The humorous style is very refreshing, if only my networking lecturers had been more witty I might remember more of this
Re: The HTTP crash course nobody asked for
#45> We're not done with our request payload yet! We sent:
> Host: neverssl.com
> This is actually a requirement for HTTP/1.1, and was one of its big selling points compared to, uh...
> AhAH! Drew yourself into a corner didn't you.
> ...Gopher? I guess?
I feel like the author must know this.. HTTP/1.0 supported but didn't require the Host header and thus HTTP/1.1 allowed consistent name-based virtual hosting on web servers.
I did appreciate the simple natures of the early protocols, although it is hard to argue against the many improvements in newer protocols. It was so easy to use nc to test SMTP and HTTP in particular.
I did enjoy the article's notes on the protocols however the huge sections of code snippets lost my attention midway.
Re: The HTTP crash course nobody asked for
#46Amos' writing style is just so incredibly good. I don't know anyone else doing these very long-form, conversational style articles.
Plus, you know, just an awesome dev who knows his stuff. Huge fan.
Re: The HTTP crash course nobody asked for
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Against my better judgement, the article /does/ go over H2 (although H3 is all the rage right now). For TLS, I recommend The Illustrated TLS 1.3 Connection (Every byte explained and reproduced): https://tls13.xargs.org/
Thanks for the link! Are there other good crash courses on various protocols and standards? Directly jumping into the dry official specs is just too overwhelmingly sometimes.
I recently crammed a bunch on DNS for an interview, and I can recommend the cloudflare blogs on that topic as being quite good.
Re: The HTTP crash course nobody asked for
#48> We're not done with our request payload yet! We sent: > Host: neverssl.com > This is actually a requirement for HTTP/1.1, and was one of its big selling points compared to, uh... > AhAH! Drew yourself into a corner didn't you. > ...Gopher? I guess? I feel like the author must know this.. HTTP/1.0 supported but didn't require the Host header and thus HTTP/1.1 allowed consistent name-based virtual hosting on web serv…
> I feel like the author must know this
The author does know this, it's a reference to a couple paragraphs above:
> [...] and the HTTP protocol version, which is a fixed string which is always set to HTTP/1.1 and nothing else.
> (cool bear) But what ab-
> IT'S SET TO HTTP/1.1 AND NOTHING ELSE.
Re: The HTTP crash course nobody asked for
#49I hope there's a h2 or TLS crash course.
Against my better judgement, the article /does/ go over H2 (although H3 is all the rage right now). For TLS, I recommend The Illustrated TLS 1.3 Connection (Every byte explained and reproduced): https://tls13.xargs.org/
I'd like to thank you for the time and effort it must take to research, write and edit these articles. The tone you strike with these articles is a delight to read, and I find myself gobbling these things up even for topics about which I (falsely, it usually turns out) consider myself fairly knowledgeable.
Re: The HTTP crash course nobody asked for
#50> We're not done with our request payload yet! We sent: > Host: neverssl.com > This is actually a requirement for HTTP/1.1, and was one of its big selling points compared to, uh... > AhAH! Drew yourself into a corner didn't you. > ...Gopher? I guess? I feel like the author must know this.. HTTP/1.0 supported but didn't require the Host header and thus HTTP/1.1 allowed consistent name-based virtual hosting on web serv…
> I feel like the author must know this The author does know this, it's a reference to a couple paragraphs above: > [...] and the HTTP protocol version, which is a fixed string which is always set to HTTP/1.1 and nothing else. > (cool bear) But what ab- > IT'S SET TO HTTP/1.1 AND NOTHING ELSE.
Thanks, missed that.