An example of how this could work is that a client could support receiving an image. When this happens, it could upload it to an image host of choice, get the url, and send that.
It's what users already do, but without having to pop a new tab, head to imgur, upload the image, and copy paste it back etc.
I've scripted things like that in irssi the past (although using scp and one server I own, not imgur, but that shouldn't be massively harder). Most IRC clients are trivially scriptable.
I'm always baffled when I see that the Signal client package is like 80MB on desktop and lacks basic functionality and configurability while irssi is barely 1MB, extremely lightweight and effectively endlessly configurable. Let's not even talk about Discord which manages to lag severely in Firefox on my high-end gaming PC.
> I've scripted things... Most IRC clients are trivially scriptable.
Because all people find it valuable to find out how IRC clients are scriptable, figuring out all the moving parts to the clients' scripting interface, to a third-party API (if it exists), etc. etc.
That's not equivalent though, with IRC scripting you can do whatever you want. With Slack or Discord you do whatever Slack or Discord allows you to do. You also don't have to worry about features becoming unavailable or gimped in the future.
It is equivalent. It is also the reason why Slack and others have taken the world by storm, and why IRC and XMPP are more or less dying. Because Slack (and FB messenger, and Apple Messages, and Discord, and... and...) provide an out-of-the-box experience immediately available to anyone (including non-programmers or programmers who couldn’t care less about scripting a yet another barebones app).
And the problems continue beyond just scripting another app. The world is mobile, and old protocols have missed the memo.
> It is also the reason why Slack and others have taken the world by storm
The same thing could have been said about messaging clients like ICQ, AIM, MSN messenger etc. vs IRC, but none of them remain while IRC is still actively used.
But why? Why add extra steps and add in having to keep the code to adapt to APIs or URL paths that change every 6 months? It's not like keeping a browser and IRC client open are mutually exclusive.
I personally just $ cp whatever.jpg ~/www/ because I host my static site from my home connection and have for 20 years. I know self-hosting is not for everyone but everyone self hosting would literally solve all the problems of the web.
It's at the same level as "just run curlftpfs on a remote server and trivially run CVS on it" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224). The HN crowd is quick to find a good reason why the proposed solution isn't the correct one, but unfortunately it's only true in very niche cases. When it's working for the 80% we're always complaining about it not working for the 20%.
It's really not. Everyone thinks it's super complicated and dangerous because everyone is thinking about running a webserver, a database, and some active scripting language.
Just running a webserver is dead simple. The only technical stumbling block would be forwarding the port from the router and a good chunk of internet users understand that.
You can't seriously say that and talk about port forwarding in the next sentence. Some people still think internet is the web is Google is Facebook. Some people (understandably) don't want to have something running 24/7. Most people won't be able to maintain their server, turning them into the biggest botnet ever created. I'd love the internet to be more decentralized, but this is just not reasonable.
I can. Lets use an metaphor. Forwarding ports is the replacing turn signal bulbs in car of computing. Yes, it is too much for some people. But it is objectively simple and anyone could do it.
People who are absolutely ignorant and incapable of learning aren't who I'm talking about. Most people can learn to change a turn signal bulb.
And no, running a static webserver will not cause vulnerabilities. Again, like in my prior comment, that only happens when you use some complex combination of webserver, database, and scripting language. A static webserver is significantly more secure than opening up a page in your browser with javascript enabled.
Because I want to be able to simply drag and drop an image for someone to see it immediately and not faff about with 15 extra steps of alt tabbing through browsers and copying links and waiting for uploads to finish.
There are several image hosts with tools available that make uploading as easy as passing a filename to a command or dropping it in a synced folder, so you're really just adding one step to the process of pasting an image into IRC.
Except I might not be working in a terminal, I might not have the file available locally (I personally don't have any stored on my computer). Like the poster above I'd like to drag and drop something from a tab to the conversation, and not have to deal with the steps between. That's what technology is about after all.
well, it's an entirely client side thing to have, so the "why" very much comes down to the developers balance on adding extra code for extra convenience. The developer might like it personally, or they might find it's a feature that their users want, or both.
As an example, I have my thinkpads prtscr button hooked up to automatically capture the screen, upload to 0x0.st, put the url into my clipboard, and then alert dunst to pop a notification that it's done.
It takes a very common 60 second process and makes it almost as fast as prtscr, ctrl+v
It's what users already do, but without having to pop a new tab, head to imgur, upload the image, and copy paste it back etc.