4 ms·

I disagree. This is a backward-looking argument which ignores the unique benefits of the web which made it inevitable that it would evolve into an application

I disagree. This is a backward-looking argument which ignores the unique benefits of the web which made it inevitable that it would evolve into an application platform, regardless of how tortured the results may feel. The web is the first truly cross-platform development environment. It is not controlled by a single vendor, and anyone implementing a new computing device must support the web (just stop for a second and consider from a historical perspective what a monumental accomplishment that is). Furthermore, it allows casual access of content and applications without any installation requirement. It comes with a reasonable security model baked-in, which, while imperfect, gets far more attention than most OS vendor sandboxing schemes. Last but not least, the web's primitive is a simple page, which is far more useful than an app as a primitive—for every app someone installs they probably visit 100 web pages for information that they would never consider installing an app for. I agree that the web is sort of abused as an application platform, the problem is there is no central planning method which will achieve its benefits in more app-oriented fashion. No company has the power to create a standard for binary app deliverables that will have anywhere near the reach of the web. And even if one could consolidate the power and mastermind such a thing, I feel like it would run squarely into Gall's Law and have twice as many warts as the web.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
timr 11y ago
"The web is the first truly cross-platform development environment." No it isn't. Not even close. It's maybe the first cross-platform development "environment" of which millenials are widely aware. But it's only an "environment" in the most ecological sense -- it's a collection of ugly hacks, each building upon the other, with the sort of complexity and incomprehensibility and interdependency of organisms you'd expect to find in a dung heap. "Last but not least, the web's primitive is a simple page, which is far more useful than an app as a primitive" For whom, exactly? You're just begging the question. I'll grant you that "installing" an app is more burdensome for users than browsing to a web page, but the amount of developer time spent (badly) shoe-horning UI development problems (that we solved in the 90s) into the "page" metaphor is mind-boggling. In retrospect, the Java applet approach seems like a missed opportunity. The proper reaction to something like React, for example, should be shame, not pride. We've finally managed to kludge together something vaguely resembling the UI development platform we had in windows 3, but with less consistency, greater resource consumption, and at the expense of everything that made the web good in the first place. And for what reason? It's not as if these "pages" work as webpages anymore. A proper "application development environment" for the web would be something that discards the page model entirely, and replaces it with a set of open components that resembles what we've had for decades in the world of desktop application development.
- cbd1984 11y ago
  > But it's only an "environment" in the most ecological sense -- it's a collection of ugly hacks, each building upon the other, with the sort of complexity and incomprehensibility and interdependency of organisms you'd expect to find in a dung heap. That's what every practical environment is. Only the environments which never get used remain "pristine" in the architectural sense, because you cannot fundamentally re-architect an ecology once you have actual users beyond the development team and a few toy test loads.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Given how fast JS world jumps between frameworks I'm thinking that yes, a strong enough actor could in fact re-architect the Web, or at least clear out some of that dung heap...
- dasil003 11y ago
  > No it isn't. Not even close. It's maybe the first cross-platform development "environment" of which millenials are widely aware. Name one then instead of this patronizing BS.
  - timr 11y ago
    Just off the top of my head: Delphi, Smalltalk, Java, Flash, Mono, and many different cross-library thunks like wxWindows, Qt, GTK+, and so on. Two seconds of googling will find you dozens.
    - dasil003 11y ago
      Those aren't cross-platform the way the web is cross-platform, they all depend primarily on one vendor's implementation. None of those ever had any hope of crossing the chasm to ubiquity, they only gained as much traction as their vendor had market clout on a limited set of platforms for a limited time period.
      - 11y ago
niutech 11y ago
This post is about web bloat, not about app platforms.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

timr 11y ago

"The web is the first truly cross-platform development environment." No it isn't. Not even close. It's maybe the first cross-platform development "environment" of which millenials are widely aware. But it's only an "environment" in the most ecological sense -- it's a collection of ugly hacks, each building upon the other, with the sort of complexity and incomprehensibility and interdependency of organisms you'd expect to find in a dung heap. "Last but not least, the web's primitive is a simple page, which is far more useful than an app as a primitive" For whom, exactly? You're just begging the question. I'll grant you that "installing" an app is more burdensome for users than browsing to a web page, but the amount of developer time spent (badly) shoe-horning UI development problems (that we solved in the 90s) into the "page" metaphor is mind-boggling. In retrospect, the Java applet approach seems like a missed opportunity. The proper reaction to something like React, for example, should be shame, not pride. We've finally managed to kludge together something vaguely resembling the UI development platform we had in windows 3, but with less consistency, greater resource consumption, and at the expense of everything that made the web good in the first place. And for what reason? It's not as if these "pages" work as webpages anymore. A proper "application development environment" for the web would be something that discards the page model entirely, and replaces it with a set of open components that resembles what we've had for decades in the world of desktop application development.

cbd1984 11y ago
> But it's only an "environment" in the most ecological sense -- it's a collection of ugly hacks, each building upon the other, with the sort of complexity and incomprehensibility and interdependency of organisms you'd expect to find in a dung heap. That's what every practical environment is. Only the environments which never get used remain "pristine" in the architectural sense, because you cannot fundamentally re-architect an ecology once you have actual users beyond the development team and a few toy test loads.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Given how fast JS world jumps between frameworks I'm thinking that yes, a strong enough actor could in fact re-architect the Web, or at least clear out some of that dung heap...
dasil003 11y ago
> No it isn't. Not even close. It's maybe the first cross-platform development "environment" of which millenials are widely aware. Name one then instead of this patronizing BS.
- timr 11y ago
  Just off the top of my head: Delphi, Smalltalk, Java, Flash, Mono, and many different cross-library thunks like wxWindows, Qt, GTK+, and so on. Two seconds of googling will find you dozens.
  - dasil003 11y ago
    Those aren't cross-platform the way the web is cross-platform, they all depend primarily on one vendor's implementation. None of those ever had any hope of crossing the chasm to ubiquity, they only gained as much traction as their vendor had market clout on a limited set of platforms for a limited time period.
    - 11y ago

niutech 11y ago

This post is about web bloat, not about app platforms.