What you're saying is valid, I just kept some of the details out of the article to make it more accessible.
I approached writing this from the point of view of an application developer, not a network engineer. I would argue that QUIC is like TCP and UDP in the sense that they're your three choices if you're building an application-layer protocol. I do think QUIC is similar to TCP in the sense that both offer reliable data transfer, and that QUIC is similar to UDP in the sense that it's UDP with reliable connection-oriented data transfer and other bells and whistles like built-in TLS on top.
From the point of view of a network engineer who's used to OSI's architecture model, this will indeed be an unconditional way to frame things. But I think it makes sense from the perspective of a layperson who doesn't necessarily need a nuanced view of the full protocol stack to make an online game.
What you're saying is valid, I just kept some of the details out of the article to make it more accessible.
I approached writing this from the point of view of an application developer, not a network engineer. I would argue that QUIC is like TCP and UDP in the sense that they're your three choices if you're building an application-layer protocol. I do think QUIC is similar to TCP in the sense that both offer reliable data transfer, and that QUIC is similar to UDP in the sense that it's UDP with reliable connection-oriented data transfer and other bells and whistles like built-in TLS on top.
From the point of view of a network engineer who's used to OSI's architecture model, this will indeed be an unconditional way to frame things. But I think it makes sense from the perspective of a layperson who doesn't necessarily need a nuanced view of the full protocol stack to make an online game.
A layperson making an online game, God bless that day!