Additionally, at the time the “small text files” description appeared, your average computer user was much more familiar with “files” than “data”. Everyone was still mostly using desktop apps and managing their own files in folders and floppy disks, the cloud wasn’t a thing and the web wasn’t really an app platform yet. At the time, I think “data” (the article’s suggested change) would have read as more opaque and technical than “file”.

As an additional data point, this the exact phrasing that ycombinator.com/legal uses:

> A “cookie” is a piece of information sent to your browser by a website you visit. Cookies can be stored on your computer for different periods of time.

> It's interesting that the author writes this whole rant about the stupidity of describing cookies as "small text files" and how that's a ridiculous and incorrect abstraction, without realizing that cookies used to be exactly that,

That's... not the point of the article? The point is that whether they're stored on a text file, in a sqlite database or on the blockchain is an implementation detail that tells the user nothing about what a cookie actually is and what it is for.

> without realizing that cookies used to be exactly that

I believe the author does realize that:

> at least, I'm guessing IE must implement cookies using separate small files, or must have done so at one point

Netscape used to store cookies similar to curl in a single file, one cookie per line. IE was the only browser (AFAIK) that stored cookies in individual text files, and somehow that became canon. So I don't think it's correct in general to say "cookies used to be text files".

> somehow that became canon

IE had 90%+ market share for 4 years.

The author also doesn't realize that they're still files! Putting the file in a database doesn't change its nature, it's just storing it in a relational database instead of a hierarchical one.

If you store a jpeg file in a database, is it no longer a jpeg file?

How are they "still" files? The never have been files. They are some value that is part of the HTTP header. No one would call the HSTS value a text file, even though it's a string of printable bytes in the HTTP header that is stored somewhere on the hard drive by the browser, just like a cookie.

What is your definition of "file" that precludes calling these text files, files?

The word "file" has a very broad definition. HTTP/0.9 itself could be accurately described as a protocol for sending a text file as a query and receiving one in response. A basic HTTP client can be implemented by reading and writing files into netcat.

The entire HTTP header is a text file.

Where would you digitally sure a JPEG that's not a database? A file system is a database. I guess arguably it's a record if its in a non file-specific database?

True, and in a similar vein, we still have the floppy disk icon for "save to disk". In 20 years, most users will have never seen a floppy disk in their entire life. Still, the icon will remain.

> Still, the icon will remain.

Not really. The need to "save" is becoming less and less relevant. All changes are synced with the cloud and stored immediately. Even in some programming IDEs the need to save is a lot less common.

> All changes are synced with the cloud and stored immediately

An optimistic outlook, to be sure. Many Dropbox, iCloud, AWS, etc. users who've been burned by their experiences might beg to differ.

I hope not - for projects with any complexity, knowing I’ve got a checkpoint means I don’t need to think hard about doing risky things. I wonder if Microsoft keeps stats on how many Office users use auto save.

The "call" button on mobile phones is a rotary handset.

Or normal corded telephone handset.

It's not a floppy, it's a Zip100!

This mirrored my reaction as well. My first thought went something like, "that was a reasonably accurate explanation that most computer users would have understood... circa 1999."

Standard practices among browsers have changed, and your typical modern user of a computing device is no more savvy to techno-speak than a coconut can comprehend Etruscan.

The explanation is dated and needs to be retired; that's no reason to go after it with such vitriol.