On 4 November 2017 at 20:00, Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com> wrote: > > Mmm Lua is not that popular, and clearly it's the wrong tool to write a > http server with > [...] > > <snip> > Okay... so that specific implementation is broken and no good for dealing > with the >2GB reality we already live in for many years... there are many > things that are no good for that task... these things can be forced into > view by interoperability test suites.. > > <snip> > > > I am afraid 32-bit only limit is basically useless for general web use for > many years already. Languages that don't even have a way to deal with > >32-bit quantities are fundamentally broken and useless for a web with >2GB > and >4GB objects. That can't be the guide for standards, otherwise we > would have inherited a web that coddles WIN16 / 8088 limitations according > to this logic. > > One last post from me, because I know I'm talking to the wind, but: I would suggest that saying "this thing is bad or broken or wrong" doesn't change the fact that someone will do it, on the open web, in a way that causes Interesting™ breakages. We aren't here to tell people what (not) to do; rather we're here to describe how to get something done in a way that is useful and reliable, hard to get wrong, and easy to sort out if/when it does eventually go wrong. That includes predicting and addressing ways we can foresee that it could go wrong, or that similar things have gone wrong in the past. And nobody (for a given definition of "nobody") cares about interoperability test suites, apart from the really big one (i.e. reality.) Some of the errors that come up in that one can be rather... Interesting™. Cheers -- Matthew Kerwin http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
Received on Saturday, 4 November 2017 11:09:27 UTC