ES6 Transpilation strategies/HTTP2

(Michael Brett) #1

I just saw Kyle Simpson’s latest blog post on getting your raw es6 code out into browsers. You can read it here (and it’s definitely worth a read):

This sentence stood out to me, though:

Second, HTTP v2 is coming, fast. It’s rolling out in more and more large sites and browser installations. I don’t think it will take too long (maybe 12-18 months) before it’s the majority of web traffic.

HTTP2 the majority of web traffic in 12-18 months?!

Anyone else think this is optimistic?

(Gav) #2

Would that mean we see a website at http2://www.something - that looks rubbish…

(note I have no idea http2 was/is coming, or what ES6 is…)

(Marc Cooper) #3

For sites keeping their web servers up to date, it won’t be.

http2 (and SPDY deprecation) hit nginx trunk a week ago:

No. http2 is backward compatible. Browser asks web server for available protocols and chooses.

(Andy Wootton) #4

Yes, I need help with this too. HTTP v2 is a transport protocol?
Is this a bit like someone on a train being told that the track gauge has changed? I don’t feel we should need to care as long as our browsers and web servers are updated in time. Are we missing something?

(Michael Brett) #5

Wowsers trousers! I’m a big fan of the Changelog podcast, when they had Ilya Grigorik on, I got the impression it was still years away from widespread adoption.

No more minify and concat! Woop woop!

(Marc Cooper) #6

I suspect Google piled in bodies to assist :wink:

(Marc Cooper) #7

It should be transparent to users. It’s a big deal for devs and sysadmins.

(Andy Wootton) #8

I’ve just done a bit of reading. Is this the tech that proves my theory that JavaScript is just the web’s high-level assembly language, there ‘to prepare us for the one that will come after’?

Do these changes turn JS into a kind of Java/C# byte-code, to allow better languages to be transcoded (like cross-compiled) into a better version of JS? I can see why that might need wider carriages to allow for new wheels on the trains too.

I’ve just worked out how I know this. I went to Opera “lovegod”/punk Bruce Lawson’s @brucel chat at @StaffsWebMeetup

(Michael Brett) #9

"1, 2, 3, 4, I declare a FLAME WAR!’ :smile:

(Andy Wootton) #10

I didn’t specify a language. I don’t think you could win on an argument that it will never be possible to invent a language that is better than JavaScript, so I’m quite relaxed about that war.I think I could raise an army quite quickly to fight for that cause.

(Richard Cunningham) #11

Firefox and Chrome have said it will they will only support HTTP/2 on HTTPS connections. Given that the majority of web traffic isn’t HTTPS, I don’t see how HTTP/2 can be the majority of the traffic.

(Marc Cooper) #12

Do you have a cite for that, Richard?

(Richard Cunningham) #13

http/2 implementations here:

45% of the top sites support HTTPS
and most likely the number is far lower for full support as many sites only use HTTPS for the login page.

(Marc Cooper) #14

Believe that’s current status. My understanding, based on not seeing other plans, is both http and https will be supported.

(Richard Cunningham) #15

I don’t know what the reasoning is for not supporting HTTP mode in HTTP/2. Though I’ve been thinking recently, that it would good if all new browser features were only enabled on HTTPS sites, to encourage faster adoption of HTTPS.

Update: It is actually mozilla’s policy to do exactly what I said (don’t think I knew that before)