3 ms·

What you're describing is exactly what Java Applets were designed to do 20 years ago. And yet they never achieved a fraction of what "the current mess" has ach

What you're describing is exactly what Java Applets were designed to do 20 years ago. And yet they never achieved a fraction of what "the current mess" has achieved.

dTal 11y ago
As a communications platform, sure. As an application platform, I'm not sure I agree. I have used many actual applications packaged as .jar files. They're generally more featureful and performant than we have come to expect from web apps[1]. As a platform-independent, single-file distribution format, Java actually works very well. Java wasn't ever intended to compete with the Web; it was the Web that got ideas. [1] I know, citation needed. Okay. Show me the web app that looks like this, that doesn't kill my EeePC: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Gephi-07beta-screenshot.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Gephi-07...
AlphaSite 11y ago
Honestly, the things people did with applets probably haven't been replicated by JS in the browser, especially when native got involved (if I'm remembering correctly).
warbiscuit 11y ago
I think java apps failed to achieve more mainly because they didn't have decent access to the DOM, and the HTML rendering engine that goes with it. IMHO that's the killer app of the browser... for all it's faults, the HTML+CSS rendering engine is a superior UI description api than anything previously devised. I remember the brief period I wrote some java apps. The main pain was choosing between rendering a native java gui, or establishing hooks to have it instrument an html interface from behind the scenes. The native gui had better connection to the code... whereas using the DOM was insanely flexible, but talking to the DOM was like trying to drive a car by reaching through the tailpipe. That I think is why java apps never prospered (outside of the whole "loading" issue... which could have been optimized away if the motivation was there). --- JS currently has the best of both worlds, and not because of anything native to the language (though it does have many positive points). I feel like WebAssembly, and things like PyPy.js, are a step in the right direction. Making the DOM and HTML+CSS just another ui library available to the language of the moment. Having PyPy.js is great, because (I assume) where PyPy's python goes, all the other pypy interpreters (Hippy, etc) can follow.
- johncolanduoni 11y ago
  > IMHO that's the killer app of the browser... for all it's faults, the HTML+CSS rendering engine is a superior UI description api than anything previously devised. Except it's horrifically slow. It was never designed for widespread dynamic update, and to work around it we have to go to great lengths like having a virtual DOM. Combine that with the widespread incompatibility of different implementations, and I have trouble seeing it as a good UI framework at all, let alone a superior one.

What you're describing is exactly what Java Applets were designed to do 20 years ago. And yet they never achieved a fraction of what "the current mess" has achieved.

dTal 11y ago

As a communications platform, sure. As an application platform, I'm not sure I agree. I have used many actual applications packaged as .jar files. They're generally more featureful and performant than we have come to expect from web apps[1]. As a platform-independent, single-file distribution format, Java actually works very well. Java wasn't ever intended to compete with the Web; it was the Web that got ideas. [1] I know, citation needed. Okay. Show me the web app that looks like this, that doesn't kill my EeePC: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Gephi-07beta-screenshot.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Gephi-07...

AlphaSite 11y ago

Honestly, the things people did with applets probably haven't been replicated by JS in the browser, especially when native got involved (if I'm remembering correctly).

warbiscuit 11y ago

I think java apps failed to achieve more mainly because they didn't have decent access to the DOM, and the HTML rendering engine that goes with it. IMHO that's the killer app of the browser... for all it's faults, the HTML+CSS rendering engine is a superior UI description api than anything previously devised. I remember the brief period I wrote some java apps. The main pain was choosing between rendering a native java gui, or establishing hooks to have it instrument an html interface from behind the scenes. The native gui had better connection to the code... whereas using the DOM was insanely flexible, but talking to the DOM was like trying to drive a car by reaching through the tailpipe. That I think is why java apps never prospered (outside of the whole "loading" issue... which could have been optimized away if the motivation was there). --- JS currently has the best of both worlds, and not because of anything native to the language (though it does have many positive points). I feel like WebAssembly, and things like PyPy.js, are a step in the right direction. Making the DOM and HTML+CSS just another ui library available to the language of the moment. Having PyPy.js is great, because (I assume) where PyPy's python goes, all the other pypy interpreters (Hippy, etc) can follow.

johncolanduoni 11y ago
> IMHO that's the killer app of the browser... for all it's faults, the HTML+CSS rendering engine is a superior UI description api than anything previously devised. Except it's horrifically slow. It was never designed for widespread dynamic update, and to work around it we have to go to great lengths like having a virtual DOM. Combine that with the widespread incompatibility of different implementations, and I have trouble seeing it as a good UI framework at all, let alone a superior one.