Thread

1. Conlectus · 1790598456 · focus · HN ↗

   There’s a specific downside to LLM-based development that people can get neck deep in a new project without interfacing with the existing work in the field.

   In this case, this is basically a poorly specified implementation of half of XMPP. Of course, I half expect the LLM would have mentioned that at some point, but the repository does not.

   1. dale_glass · 1790601737 · focus · HN ↗

      Unfortunately XMPP is an absolutely terrible protocol. IRC's not much good either, but at least it has the excuse of being ancient and limited in what it wanted to achieve.

      I don't know how it just happens that sending text messages to people can manage to result in specs that are painful to implement.

      1. ryandrake · 1790606433 · focus · HN ↗

         > I don't know how it just happens that sending text messages to people can manage to result in specs that are painful to implement.

         This is what boggles my mind. We're talking: Text. Over the Internet. It should not be a complex, difficult problem! We've been sending text over the Internet from the moment the Internet went online. So how is it that 10 companies have managed to find 30 different ways to do it, which are all incompatible with each other? You have to TRY to fail this badly.

         1. jodrellblank · 1790609427 · focus · HN ↗

            This is what boggles my mind. We're talking decades of arguments and discussions, dozens of different ways to do it, with dozens of tradeoffs that you could start listing with 20 seconds of thought, and still people just pop in like "why isn't it simple??" as if that's some award winning insight.

            Come on, try! Start listing some of the core features of the different protocols/clients and answer your own question as to why it isn't simple! Presence. Chat history while offline. Threading. Mobile devices. Intermittent/mobile/cellular/wifi/CGNAT connectivity. Multiple clients on the same identity and presence. Identity establishing and confirming. Encryption. End-to-end encryption. Backing up and restoring chats, encrypted chats, group chats. Federation. Friends/groups/permissions/trust boundaries. Markup, markdown, formatting, images, emoji, unicode, code blocks. Audio, video, broadcast, multicast. Discovery. Extensibility. Federation. Store-and-forward.

            > "We've been sending text over the Internet from the moment the Internet went online"

            And IRC has RFC 1459, RFC 2810, RFC 2811, RFC 2812, RFC 2813, RFC 7194 and it does almost none of those things.

            And you can still use IRC. But IRC is not good. At this point it's either wilfull ignorance of what people use computers for, or it's indistinguishable from deliberate trolling.

            1. NoMoreNicksLeft · 1790610419 · focus · HN ↗

               Threading? God, I hate threads in a live chat. Is it never not awkward to use? Slack is the example I'm thinking of, though I'm sure it's shit everywhere else too. In Slack, rather than display the one threaded reply just below (maybe indented), it makes me go to another window, but then someone else is replying non-threaded, so I have to bounce back and forth for the next 10 minutes.

               1. exogenousdata · 1790628542 · focus · HN ↗

                  As an anecdotal counter-point, I love threads in a live chat. When used correctly, it means when my idiot friends start having a heated discussion about some random topic while I'm at work, I get one 'ding' from my phone and then never again until I start interacting or they @ me. As opposed to the 427 new notifications I get on my phone about whether Golden Eye was better than Mario Kart 64.

                  Ultimately the tech is only as good as the humans that use it. If you're chatting with folks that can't understand the difference between a thread or not, that's a meat-bag issue and not anything an RFC can fix.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.