It's disappointing to see your kind of a response here.
It starts when somebody makes a legitimate observation that a very specific set of functionality has been shown to have serious flaws in practice, and then suggests that perhaps the best course of action is to remove this very specific, and broken, functionality.
Then somebody else comes along, and responds like you did with a smart-ass comment taking it to an overly-broad, unreasonable and stupid extreme. These kinds of comments are useless.
Sometimes the best way to fix broken functionality is to remove it. That in no way means it's the only possible solution, however. Nor does it mean that it needs to be applied without bound.
>It starts when somebody makes a legitimate observation that a very specific set of functionality has been shown to have serious flaws in practice, and then suggests that perhaps the best course of action is to remove this very specific, and broken, functionality.
I missed that. I saw a link that says that we shouldn't have verbs because no one implemented them, LOL SPACEJUMP.
Do you really think that it's a "legitimate observation" that because node.js has a shitty http parser, the parts of http that it parsed badly should be thrown out?
I read two smart-ass comments here, and a civility troll.
It starts when somebody makes a legitimate observation that a very specific set of functionality has been shown to have serious flaws in practice, and then suggests that perhaps the best course of action is to remove this very specific, and broken, functionality.
Then somebody else comes along, and responds like you did with a smart-ass comment taking it to an overly-broad, unreasonable and stupid extreme. These kinds of comments are useless.
Sometimes the best way to fix broken functionality is to remove it. That in no way means it's the only possible solution, however. Nor does it mean that it needs to be applied without bound.