3 ms·
That sounds ambitious, interesting, and like a lot more work than keeping a webpage running. My first thought is "cross-platform nightmare". My second thought i
by khedoros 11y ago
That sounds ambitious, interesting, and like a lot more work than keeping a webpage running. My first thought is "cross-platform nightmare". My second thought is that they'd have to rethink their expectations of continuous deployment/release and a/b testing.
We're either looking at making individual pages maintain binaries for the platforms they support (implying support of only those platforms that make sense to the site) or some kind of compilation framework running on the local machine.
- PretzelFisch 11y agoThis native delivery is pretty much a solved problem, just look at how firefox and chrome auto update.
- khedoros 11y agoFirefox and Chrome don't do "move fast and break things"-style continuous deployment, can't push updates to a user seamlessly (i.e. without restarting the program), and can be downloaded and compiled on platforms that Mozilla and Google don't want to officially support. Native delivery of a monolithic browser based on an open-source codebase is a fixed problem. Trying to do the same with a website, using current techniques, would cause issues to both their current workflow and my expectations as a user that websites don't currently have. I'm not saying that it's impossible to do, I'm just saying that it's not a good fit for current trends in web development, and I'm not convinced that it would be great for the users either.