3 ms·

I'm not understanding your distinction between 'websites' and 'web applications'(we can have a debate about the distinction). All the issues that the author rai

I'm not understanding your distinction between 'websites' and 'web applications'(we can have a debate about the distinction). All the issues that the author raised apply to both categoties when WebSockets are used. So in context, it's a meaningless distinction. And even if you are writing just a 'website' - why shouldn't you use any standard tool available? It's like saying CSS3 is overkill for 'websites'. At work we have a true 'web application' and opted for long polling for real-time collab for a variety of reasons, one of which is that long poll plays nice with corporate firewalls and WebSockets are a mixed bag.

paulddraper 11y ago
It has to do with amount of "dynamicism" present. I.e. are you using HTML and CSS to read formatted research articles, or are you building a collaborative equation WYSIWG editor?
uptown 11y ago
I suppose inherent in the design of many modern 'web applications' is the concept of a single page interface. This encourages user behavior through a single view, rather than how many people interact with a website where they might spawn off dozens of tabs for each piece of content they intend to consume. In the case of the later, you'd wind up with dozens of tabs each conducting some form of communication, whereas with a web application, the design of the app might result in fewer connections since they're being routed through an interface designed to manage the flow of user interaction. Certainly not the case for every website or every web application, but I think that's conceptually why the distinction was being made.
spoiler 11y ago
It's like @uptown described it. It's not so much about what technology is used, but the overall design, work flow, and the user requirements of the Web app. Let's take Facebook.com for example, feels more like a website, while its Messenger.com website does feel more like a web app.

paulddraper 11y ago

It has to do with amount of "dynamicism" present. I.e. are you using HTML and CSS to read formatted research articles, or are you building a collaborative equation WYSIWG editor?

uptown 11y ago

I suppose inherent in the design of many modern 'web applications' is the concept of a single page interface. This encourages user behavior through a single view, rather than how many people interact with a website where they might spawn off dozens of tabs for each piece of content they intend to consume. In the case of the later, you'd wind up with dozens of tabs each conducting some form of communication, whereas with a web application, the design of the app might result in fewer connections since they're being routed through an interface designed to manage the flow of user interaction. Certainly not the case for every website or every web application, but I think that's conceptually why the distinction was being made.

spoiler 11y ago

It's like @uptown described it. It's not so much about what technology is used, but the overall design, work flow, and the user requirements of the Web app. Let's take Facebook.com for example, feels more like a website, while its Messenger.com website does feel more like a web app.