Seriously? Man, HackerNews never changes. No "good job" for engaging in an experimental approach to learning. No "this is a great project to start with, but..." Just a straight-up back-handed correction. lol, Figures.

While I agree with you in most other cases I've seen (this happens a lot), parent wasn't necessarily ragging on the dev, just adding a useful note. I found it helpful, as I wasn't aware there was an updated specification.

Is it a case of one just being monstrously easier? Like how everyone makes an HTTP1.1 server but never a higher version.

HTTP1.1 was the standard for decades (1990-2015, technically still extant). People usually just "stop there" because it's what the majority of browsers and devices were targeted to support and does "just enough" of what they're seeking.

Of course you would make an HTTP/2 server, if you were looking for active push support and the like.

Also, HTTP/1 is amazingly simple compared to HTTP/2.

I can write you an HTTP/1 server in bash in an hour or two.

9293 takes 953 and incorporates the errata (20 of them) and 6 other RFCS, so in that sense it's easier since you don't have to check elsewhere for bugs or updates.

953 is 85 pages. 9293 is also 85 pages (with 13 pages of appendix), although they switched to a proportional font for the PDF so there's probably more text.

no, HTTP/1.1 was RFC 2068, then RFC 2616, now most recently RFC 7231. it's still the same protocol, but with updates and clarifications from over the years.

This was going to be a statement in support, read the classics / rfc793. Priors being you should definitely implement http from the RFC a la 199x, and:

I assumed rfc793 was shorter than 9293; false. 9293 is significantly shorter.

9293 also has a lot of implementation notes from the past.. many years of folks that have done this.

So yeah, 9293. Seems like a solid rec.

Ah yes, the classics. The Illiad, the Odyssey and of course RFC793.

There was nothing backhanded about that, that was useful relevant information.

Should my shit ever make it to HN, I would be happy for it to get scrutinized by people smarter than me, even for basic stuff. The HN crowd is mostly polite in its criticisms and acknowledges good work. That is, unless you write something like a Rust web framework that's full in unsafes and claim it to be the fastest...

You seem like the type to take criticisms well.

It's based on the videos from Jon Gjengset from 4 years ago and he used RFC793. RFC9293 has a publish date of August 2022