Comment on JPEG is Dying - And that's a bad thing | 2kliksphilip
Morphit@feddit.uk 1 month agoAdding more decoders means more overheads in code size, projects dependencies, maintanance, developer bandwidth and higher potential for security vulnerabilities.
moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 1 month ago
Morphit@feddit.uk 1 month ago
I mean, the comic is even in the OP. The whole point is that AVIF is already out there, like it or not. I’m not happy about Google setting the standards but that has to be supported. Does JPEGXL cross the line where it’s really worth adding in addition to AVIF? It’s easy to yes when you’re not the one supporting it.
SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
The alternative is to never have anything better, which is not realistic
Yes, it means more code, but that’s an inevitability. We still have lots of legacy stuff, like, say, floppy disk drivers
Morphit@feddit.uk 1 month ago
A balance has to be struck. The alternative isn’t not getting anything better, it’s being sure the benefits are worth the costs. The comment was “Why is [adding another decoder] a negative?” There is a cost to it, and while most people don’t think about this stuff, someone does.
The floppy code was destined to be removed from Linux because no one wanted to maintain it and it had such a small user base. Fortunately I think some people stepped up to look after it but that could have made preserving old software significantly harder.
If image formats get abandoned, browsers are going to face hard decisions as to whether to drop support. There has to be some push-back to over-proliferation of formats or we could be in a worse position than now, where there are only two or three viable browser alternatives that can keep up with the churn of web technologies.