Your memory is correct. Once compression was applied, the size on the wire was mostly a wash. Parsing costs were often greater but that's at the endpoints.
But one of those endpoints is a client on a mobile phone, which when we started with Internet on mobile devices wasn't a particularly powerful CPU architecture.
This is a debate I've had many times. XML, and REST, are extremely useful for certain types of use cases that you quite often run into online.
The industry abandoned both in favor of JSON and RPC for speed and perceived DX improvements, and because for a period of time everyone was in fact building only against their own servers.
There are plenty of examples over the last two decades of us having to reinvent solutions to the same problems that REST solved way back then though. MCP is the latest iteration of trying to shoehorn schemas and self-documenting APIs into a sea of JSON RPC.
Your comment doesn't sound well researched or thought all the way through. REST by definition is used nowhere at all, and virtually all RESTful APIs are RPC-over-HTTP that are loosely inspired in REST.
There is virtually zero scenarios where anyone at all ever said "This thing we're using JSON for would be easier if we just used XML".
JSON was the undisputed winner of a competition that never was in a great part because of the vast improvements over DX. I remind you that JSON is the necessary and sufficient subset of JavaScript that allowed to define data, and to parse it all anyone had to do was to pipe it to a very standard and ubiquitous eval(). No tooling, no third-party module, no framework. Nothing. There is no competition at all.
Your argument isn't researched either, if your metric is based on including sources.
You seem to be arguing that REST lost because if you look around today you will only find RPC. I agree. My point wasn't that REST won. Part of my point, though, was that REST lost and the industry has tried multiple times to bolt don't JSON RPC solutions to the same problems REST already addressed. If you would like to see some of those examples just look up Swagger, Open API, or MCP.
I agree JSON won, and I agree that it was picked based on arguments over DX. I'm not sure where you and k disagree here.
Swagger, OpenAPI have nothing to do with REST. In fact, they are the antithesis of REST, because they are the very out of band information that a REST client isn't allowed to depend on. A REST client for a pizza delivery restaurant isn't allowed to know that the "order" action is called "order", because that is out of band information. If the server is replaced by a hotel booking server with a completely different workflow, the client is supposed to continue working.
Only MCP is loosely related to REST and it's because one of the defining characteristics of REST is that the API can be discovered at runtime, which is useful if you have a pseudo human level intelligence such as an LLM, but not if you have a dumb static application that has finite capabilities.
Were you exclusively building SPAs with all of those frameworks? If you ever rendered state/content to HTML on the server you were using HATEOAS (and REST) principles.
Do you know of any studies that can accurately show the correlation between gambling and societal costs? On the surface the link makes sense to me and seems like it should be right, though I'm not sure how we could have tested it in a controlled way to really know the link exists.
There are a bunch of studies out there [0][1] (two I found immediately) showing the risks around problem gambling, but like with most vices people who’ve already picked the pro side tend to react in the same predictable ways (myself included):
1) Dismissal: Feigning or having a profound misunderstanding of how statistics work by poking at the methodology like “N=200? That’s meaningless.”
2) Apathy: “So what if some people get addicted? We can’t babysit everyone.”
3) Rationalization: “Yeah but it helps Native American reservations, so...”
4) Downplaying: "Ok problem gambling is bad, but how prevalent is problem gambling really?"
There's also a version of rationalization where people project arguments from the war on drugs to illegal gambling, as though the enforcement of illegal gambling was somehow had costs greater than just letting anyone bet any amount of money from their phones.
That's anecdotal, I was curious if there were (well designed) studies that showed likely correlation between the two.
I have had family members addicted to drugs and/or alcohol and friends that have been addicted to gambling at various times. I've seen similar reactions anecdotally, but that isn't societal or scientific.
One study showed a significant increase in domestic violence after gamblers lost sports bets (based on the team for a specific city losing or winning and then comparing DV rates to cities before and after legal online sports betting).
In my country, lot of institutions running out-of-home-campaigns against gambling-addiction etc.; so yes, if public institutions are doing this then there is some evidence there
I don't doubt that the programs are helpful, but how does that equate to evidence?
Creating a campaign doesn't prove in anyway the specific problems caused by gambling, especially at the societal level. It only shows that there is a group willing to fund programs against gambling addictions.
In no way am I questioning the intent or value of such programs, I hope it doesn't read that way. It just isn't necessarily relevant with regards to evidence.
You would like a study proving a negative? Good luck.
My point absolutely wasn't that gambling has no known negative side effects. I was asking out of curiosity if there were studies someone could link to that actually tried to test it in a controlled way.
Does this not boil down to the distinction being one's intent? I play poker occasionally, for example, and my primary goal is to win money not to take risk. Does that make it meet your definition of investing rather than gambling?
Well you're not committing the money to purchase an asset that will generate returns, so no, it's not "investing".
It would be more accurate to say you're working, really: spending time and effort to earn money. Though the "work" here, assuming you're a skilled poker player sitting with lesser-skilled marks, is similar to a crypto bro performing a rug pull. You're enabling other participants to gamble in the hope of an uncertain win, while they actually are pretty much guaranteed to lose in a zero-sum game where the house will always earn its keep.
One could say that if everybody else at the table is gambling and you're working, it's still gambling. Lunch is lunch, whether you're the customer, the chef, or the lamb.
In poker the asset I invest in is just very short term - a single hand. I put money in when I expect the asset of that hand to pay off, risking the money a bit like an even shorter term day trade.
I don't think this thread is the best place for the everlasting debate on whether day trading is "investing", but for the purposes of my definition above, day trading, like other kinds of trading like buying commodities for resale, or having a booth at the flea market, would fit my definition of "work" (you purchased something that you expect to generate profit from by putting in your time and effort) rather than investment, since the poker hand is not doing anything by itself to generate value/money/returns for you.
> It is almost impossible to escape the constant barrage of takes and news headlines these days without being a total luddite
Its odd to me to still use "luddite" disparagingly while implying that avoiding certain tech would actually have some high impact benefits. At that point I can't help but think the only real issue with being a luddite is not following the crowd and fitting in.
Hipster used to mean that but meaning changed to being someone who “doesn’t fit in” but only for performative reasons, not really “for real” but just to project an image of how cool they are
> Its odd to me to still use "luddite" disparagingly while implying that avoiding certain tech would actually have some high impact benefits
They didn't say to avoid certain tech. They said to avoid takes and news headlines.
Your conflation of those two is like someone saying "injecting bleach into your skin is bad" and you responding with "oh, so you oppose cleaning bathrooms [with bleach]?"
How so? The OP referenced how difficult it is to avoid said takes and news without being a complete luddite. That certainly implies avoiding certain tech, I have to assume they meant much of the digital tech we use today rather than the power loom luddites were pushing back on.
Your bleach scenario is confusing to me, its also you arguing against something completely unrelated to the discussion here.
The US, and likely Chinese, government(s) have too much potential leverage over Apple. I wouldn't trust that Apple would do this securely, or that the government would allow them to release it.
I'm not even sure how to compare revenue, whether relative or absolute, when Nvidia is deeply involved in multiple deals that have all the signs of circular financing scams.
Apple knows first hand how difficult and expensive it is to fire your CEO, I mean chip fab, only to rehire them when its clear that decision didn't pan out.
When it comes to global or environmental concerns, that isn't unique to software. Wealth is created by collecting and using natural resources.
You can always find companies sneaking through that system and turning a profit despite not directly consuming resources like that, but they are few and far between. I'd expect jobs like that to effectively be a rounding error, meaning anyone with a job is likely working on something that is detrimental to people and/or the planet in some way, even if those costs are externalized out of their field of view.
Wealth as we describe it today is effectively directly correlated with consumption of natural resources. Look up graphs of countries' GDP and oil consumption if you're ever curious.
If society does continue to be richer and more prosperous, and those concepts aren't somehow fundamentally redefined, continued worry about crisis or collapse seems reasonable as that wealth came at the expense of further increase the amount of resources we burn through.
Oil is a good example today, but not the only example or only one I would be concerned with.
Energy (oil, coal, etc) is a problem today and is highly correlated with our consumption, but that's mostly a side effect of how we've built economies for the last couple centuries rather than a fundamental link to oil.
I remember the arguments largely revolving around verbosity and the prevalence of JSON use in browsers.
That doesn't mean bandwidth wasn't a consideration, but I mostly remember hearing devs complain about how verbose or difficult to work with XML was.
reply