4 ms·

Actually I think the standardization of HTML5/CSS3/JS as the UI framework is preferable to the extreme fragmentation that exists in the "native" UI space I thi

by sfifs 10y ago

Actually I think the standardization of HTML5/CSS3/JS as the UI framework is preferable to the extreme fragmentation that exists in the "native" UI space I think there's opportunity in packaging this as a system installed & independently updated dynamically linked library much like WebView is updated on Android KitKat onwards. Eg. a single "system" Chromium component that's installed centrally & used by multiple programs much like Microsoft Runtime DLLs on Windows.

ravenstine 10y ago
Why? Disk space is plentiful and costs peanuts, and is becoming cheaper by the day. What's there to gain from having shared libraries other than that it's psychologically satisfying? Having been a Linux user for 12 years, I feel like it's of very limited benefit and has lots of drawbacks. Is there something I am not understanding?
- kuschku 10y ago
  My / has reached 200GB now? And that's despite /home being seperate. That's the issue. With this, my / will reach terabytes. There's two things why not: cheap isn't free, and "elegancy principle": Don't build shitty hacks, build software that's easy to maintain, as minimal as possible, and will be used for decades.
- sfifs 10y ago
  Security. The same reason security libraries are distributed independently so that they can be automatically updated without the program using them being re-compiled & re-released. On the Android platform, Chromium WebView updates far more frequently than the apps that depend on it & includes security patches on update.
- hollerith 10y ago
  >Disk space is plentiful and costs peanuts RAM in not as plentiful, nor are level-3, level-2 and level-1 cache. having a second copy or almost-copy of a library can increase utilization of any of them.
chii 10y ago
Slowly but surely, the web will re-invent the DLL hell from 2 decades ago
- oneplane 10y ago
  Not only that, but it will also re-invent the WinSXS hell in different ways. We now have modules, but also loaders in all sorts and flavors, we have AMD style, we have the noConflict style, and in the end, the web will probably re-invent snappy apps and flat image packages. Webpages will load an entire in-browser browser of a specific version required to use the page, and we'll all have come full circle. I bet we're gonna see in-browser virtualisation, because just sandboxing and containerization isn't enough.
  - Akkuma 10y ago
    This is a bit of a stretch. No one seriously writes AMD today and the support of it is solely for backward compatibility due to how trivial it is to support it. CommonJS won that battle when tools like Webpack & Browserify came into existence. ES6 Modules will replace CommonJS once loaders for both the web and node actually make it into existence. Even still, Webpack 2 and Rollup both support ES6 & CommonJS side-by-side.
thecamelisdead 10y ago
>I think there's opportunity in packaging this as a system installed & independently updated dynamically linked library much like WebView is updated on Android KitKat onwards. The people who are browsing HN probably already have the solution to this problem installed on their computers: a web browser! I don't really care about standardization of the "native" UI space. What I prefer is lightweight applications otherwise why not simply run it in a web browser? Electron loses the two primary advantages of the web and that is no need to install anything and being cross platform. For Discord, there is no linux version and on windows I like the web version more.
_pmf_ 10y ago
Instead of potential inconsistency and performance deviations, standardizing on HTML guarantees abysmal performance and subpar user experience.
- sfifs 10y ago
  actually today, I think for most applications, a HTML based UI is good enough performance wise and certainly provides much higher scope for design creativity and flexibility over native framework widgets and views. The performance improvement has basically come from the massive market that web is and consequently Google, FF and MS optimizing their JS and rendering engines (plus Moore's law)
  - kitsunesoba 10y ago
    > good enough I find that this phrase irks me quite a lot these days. Feels like it's at every corner of software development waiting to pounce and ensure thoroughly mediocre results. There's something to be said about, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" but at the same time, "good enough", especially when it comes to UI speed/responsiveness and UX quality, feels like a massive cop out. Isn't there a middle ground somewhere that doesn't call for such huge concessions?
    - tree_of_item 10y ago
      The point is that it's not a huge concession, it's what most people are using all day every day anyway.
juliangoldsmith 10y ago
>Actually I think the standardization of HTML5/CSS3/JS as the UI framework is preferable to the extreme fragmentation that exists in the "native" UI space We've already solved fragmentation in the native UI space, with GUI toolkits like GTK and Qt. If someone extended those to mobile devices, then we'd have something a lot less terrible than HTML5/CSS/JS, which performed a lot better.
- cosarara97 10y ago
  Like Qt Quick?
  - juliangoldsmith 10y ago
    I was thinking something more like GTK and GLADE, or Qt and Qt Creator. Qt Quick looks like it's kind of halfway between what I'd consider a GUI toolkit and a drawing library.

by sfifs 10y ago

ravenstine 10y ago

Why? Disk space is plentiful and costs peanuts, and is becoming cheaper by the day. What's there to gain from having shared libraries other than that it's psychologically satisfying? Having been a Linux user for 12 years, I feel like it's of very limited benefit and has lots of drawbacks. Is there something I am not understanding?

kuschku 10y ago
My / has reached 200GB now? And that's despite /home being seperate. That's the issue. With this, my / will reach terabytes. There's two things why not: cheap isn't free, and "elegancy principle": Don't build shitty hacks, build software that's easy to maintain, as minimal as possible, and will be used for decades.
sfifs 10y ago
Security. The same reason security libraries are distributed independently so that they can be automatically updated without the program using them being re-compiled & re-released. On the Android platform, Chromium WebView updates far more frequently than the apps that depend on it & includes security patches on update.
hollerith 10y ago
>Disk space is plentiful and costs peanuts RAM in not as plentiful, nor are level-3, level-2 and level-1 cache. having a second copy or almost-copy of a library can increase utilization of any of them.

chii 10y ago

Slowly but surely, the web will re-invent the DLL hell from 2 decades ago

oneplane 10y ago
Not only that, but it will also re-invent the WinSXS hell in different ways. We now have modules, but also loaders in all sorts and flavors, we have AMD style, we have the noConflict style, and in the end, the web will probably re-invent snappy apps and flat image packages. Webpages will load an entire in-browser browser of a specific version required to use the page, and we'll all have come full circle. I bet we're gonna see in-browser virtualisation, because just sandboxing and containerization isn't enough.
- Akkuma 10y ago
  This is a bit of a stretch. No one seriously writes AMD today and the support of it is solely for backward compatibility due to how trivial it is to support it. CommonJS won that battle when tools like Webpack & Browserify came into existence. ES6 Modules will replace CommonJS once loaders for both the web and node actually make it into existence. Even still, Webpack 2 and Rollup both support ES6 & CommonJS side-by-side.

thecamelisdead 10y ago

>I think there's opportunity in packaging this as a system installed & independently updated dynamically linked library much like WebView is updated on Android KitKat onwards. The people who are browsing HN probably already have the solution to this problem installed on their computers: a web browser! I don't really care about standardization of the "native" UI space. What I prefer is lightweight applications otherwise why not simply run it in a web browser? Electron loses the two primary advantages of the web and that is no need to install anything and being cross platform. For Discord, there is no linux version and on windows I like the web version more.

_pmf_ 10y ago

Instead of potential inconsistency and performance deviations, standardizing on HTML guarantees abysmal performance and subpar user experience.

sfifs 10y ago
actually today, I think for most applications, a HTML based UI is good enough performance wise and certainly provides much higher scope for design creativity and flexibility over native framework widgets and views. The performance improvement has basically come from the massive market that web is and consequently Google, FF and MS optimizing their JS and rendering engines (plus Moore's law)
- kitsunesoba 10y ago
  > good enough I find that this phrase irks me quite a lot these days. Feels like it's at every corner of software development waiting to pounce and ensure thoroughly mediocre results. There's something to be said about, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" but at the same time, "good enough", especially when it comes to UI speed/responsiveness and UX quality, feels like a massive cop out. Isn't there a middle ground somewhere that doesn't call for such huge concessions?
  - tree_of_item 10y ago
    The point is that it's not a huge concession, it's what most people are using all day every day anyway.

juliangoldsmith 10y ago

>Actually I think the standardization of HTML5/CSS3/JS as the UI framework is preferable to the extreme fragmentation that exists in the "native" UI space We've already solved fragmentation in the native UI space, with GUI toolkits like GTK and Qt. If someone extended those to mobile devices, then we'd have something a lot less terrible than HTML5/CSS/JS, which performed a lot better.

cosarara97 10y ago
Like Qt Quick?
- juliangoldsmith 10y ago
  I was thinking something more like GTK and GLADE, or Qt and Qt Creator. Qt Quick looks like it's kind of halfway between what I'd consider a GUI toolkit and a drawing library.