UDP Isn't Unreliable, It's a Conertible

Re:UDP Isn't Unreliable, It's a Conertible by klysm on Thursday October 30, 2025 @03:14PM (#45764060)

This is such a bizarre read... it's clearly LLM written, at least in outline. It somehow manages to not do the most basic comparison of guarantees that UDP and TCP provide. Ordering is only mentioned in passing, and the important nuances are completely bypassed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UDP Isn't Unreliable, It's a Conertible by jeroenhd on Thursday October 30, 2025 @03:20PM (#45764130)

It's written by someone trying to sell specialized cloud services targeted towards UDP based protocols.

Talking up UDP like it's something special is part of the business strategy.

And, to be fair, a lot of TCP-based or even HTTP-based application protocols could probably have been UDP without any trouble.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UDP Isn't Unreliable, It's a Conertible by klysm on Friday October 31, 2025 @08:28AM (#45771288)

UDP introduces trouble and the question is whether that’s worth it. It usually isn’t

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UDP Isn't Unreliable, It's a Conertible by Maxatar on Thursday October 30, 2025 @03:24PM (#45764176)

Even the title uses one of ChatGPT's signature lines "It's not X, it's Y."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:UDP Isn't Unreliable, It's a Conertible by mlhpdx on Thursday October 30, 2025 @05:54PM (#45765839)

Sadly, that's almost an expected way of writing online content now. I'll do better next time!

[ Parent | on HN ]