I feel like this article misses why people avoid TCP like the plague, and why people use UDP for many applications<p>1. Routers do all kinds of terrible things with TCP, causing high latency, and poor performance. Routers do not do this to nearly the same extent with UDP<p>2. Operating systems have a tendency to buffer for high lengths of time, resulting in very poor performance due to high latency. TCP is often seriously unusable for deployment on a random clients default setup. Getting caught out by Nagle is a classic mistake, its one of the first things to look for in a project suffering from tcp issues<p>3. TCP is stream based, which I don't think has ever been what I want. You have to reimplement your own protocol on top of TCP anyway to introduce message frames<p>4. The model of network failures that TCP works well for is a bit naive, network failures tend to cluster together making the reliability guarantees not that useful a lot of the time. Failures don't tend to be statistically independent, and your connection will drop requiring you to start again anyway<p>5. TCP's backoff model on packet failures is both incredibly aggressive, and mismatched for a flaky physical layer. Even a tiny % of packet loss can make your performance unusable, to the point where the concept of using TCP is completely unworkable<p>Its also worth noting that people use "unreliable" to mean UDP for its promptness guarantees, because reliable = TCP, and unreliable = UDP<p>QUIC and TCP actively don't meet the needs of certain applications - its worth examining a use case that's kind of glossed over in the article: Videogames<p>I think this article misses the point strongly here by ignoring this kind of use case, because in many domains you have a performance and fault model that are simply not well matched by a protocol like TCP or QUIC. None of the features on the protocol list are things that you especially need or even can implement for videogames (you really want to encrypt player positions?). In a game, your update rate might be 1KB/s - absolutely tiny. If more than N packets get dropped - under TCP <i>or</i> UDP (or quic) - because games are a hard realtime system you're screwed, and there's nothing you can do about it no matter what protocol you're using. If you use QUIC, the server will attempt to send the packet again which.... is completely pointless, and now you're stuck waiting for potentially a whole queue of packets to send if your network hiccups for a second, with presumably whatever congestion control QUIC implements, so your game lags even more once your network recovers. Ick! Should we have a separate queue for every packet?<p>Videogame networking protocols are built to tolerate the loss of a certain number of packets within a certain timeframe (eg 1 every 200ms), and this system has to be extremely tightly integrated into the game architecture to maintain your hard realtime guarantees. Adding quic is just overhead, because the reliability that QUIC provides, and the reliability that games need, are not the same kind of reliability<p>Congestion in a videogame with low bandwidths is <i>extremely</i> unlikely. The issue is that network protocols have no way to know if a dropped packet is because of congestion, or because of a flaky underlying connection. Videogames assume a priori that you do not have congestion (otherwise your game is unplayable), so all recoverable networking failures are 1 off transient network failures of less than a handful of packets by definition. When you drop a packet in a videogame, the server may <i>increase</i> its update rate to catch you up via time dilation, rather than in a protocol like TCP/QUIC which will reduce its update rate. A well designed game built on UDP tolerates a slightly flakey connection. If you use TCP or QUIC, you'll run into problems. QUIC isn't terrible, but its not good for this kind of application, and we shouldn't pretend its fine<p>For more information about a good game networking system, see this video: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odSBJ49rzDo" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odSBJ49rzDo</a>, and it goes over pretty in detail why you shouldn't use something like QUIC