5 ms·

There is plenty of software that works across Windows/Mac/Linux/Unix-like platforms. They run faster, don't always need an internet connection, are easily porta

by Nadya 10y ago

There is plenty of software that works across Windows/Mac/Linux/Unix-like platforms. They run faster, don't always need an internet connection, are easily portable, and are typically better designed and less bloated than any web-limited cross-platform application. They also don't rely on browser cache or localStorage for settings and I don't need to login daily to access my stuff. Disable your web cache and try to use a web application daily. I wouldn't use software that constantly resets or removes my config files as a side effect of some other action.

CardenB 10y ago
Aren't there lots of caveats for each platform when using so called "cross-platform" code?
- Nadya 10y ago
  Yes - totally! You either limit yourself more or double/triple your work making different system API calls depending what platform you're compiling for. Not too different from tripling your workload to support "offline" applications or dealing with IE/Safari/Chrome/Firefox differences. Most web apps I've come across either don't run in IE or have various bugs/issues in Firefox as most of them are coded on and targeting Chrome due to Chrome's dominance of the web. Which reminds me of people building/testing only on Windows. I will admit that the comparison I'm drawing are "same but different" problems. Browsers are a lot more standardized than operating systems and fixing a difference between Firefox/Chrome is usually a lot more trivial than fixing a difference between Windows/Mac.
- CorvusCrypto 10y ago
  yes. There can be a lot of boilerplate code present, however in terms of speed, using Qt for instance, can be much faster still than a web application that accomplishes the same task even if you get a huge binary after compilation. Oh and as Nadya said, sometimes this generalization causes issues. Engineering is a game of trade-offs I think :P.
  - kaoD 10y ago
    > in terms of speed That's the point. Most applications don't need speed, and most that need it can offload speed-critical code with no significant drawbacks. The web is fast enough for 99% of use cases.
    - CorvusCrypto 10y ago
      I agree. Was there any thought I didn't ;)?
  - Klathmon 10y ago
    What's the speed of the install process for those apps? How's the update system work? How quickly can you release them to all platforms? Can they be easily customized and modified by the user? Can they be easily shared? What's the permissions model like? How much can that application access?
    - izacus 10y ago
      Same way as that worked since 1980ties for all millions of home PC users.
      - Klathmon 10y ago
        But compared to the web, native applications are significantly worse in these areas. Especially on that first point. I can go to the vast majority of web apps on just about anything with a browser and get it up and running in less than a second knowing nothing more than a domain name. And there's "cross platform" then there's "cross platform". Something like QT is amazing, but you are still looking at the big-3 desktop OS's, and maybe the big mobile guys if you work for it. A web app includes all of that, plus my TV, my car headunit, and even my damn watch! (I often use a web home-automation app from a browser on my watch, the UI adapts pretty damn well for quick light-flips) Nothing is perfect for everyone, but just because it's been done since the 80's doesn't mean it can't be improved on. And as always it depends on your actual needs. There aren't any "better" and "worse" architectures.
qudat 10y ago
> Disable your web cache and try to use a web application daily. That's like saying "disable a native applications persistent storage and use it daily." It is a meaningless comment.
- Nadya 10y ago
  I can think of valid reasons to disable browser cache/cookies/localStorage that are completely unrelated to the storage of web app data. It is a side effect of web apps primarily using those methods to store user data when they don't want to store anything server side. They are designed to use local storage! That's one of their "perks". Cookies/cache/localStorage works for most users. I am not most users and I recognize that. My criticism is that the primary method of persistent storage is fundamentally flawed and makes most web apps completely unusable for me. E: I'm that person who carries a USB drive of portable software customized to my preferences primarily to be used on friends' machines or for setting up new machines. Setup once and use everywhere. Browser-based storage needs to be setup everywhere by design. I need to setup at Work and at Home because I refuse to tie my personal Home profile with my Work profile, so there is no "syncing" my profile across devices. If you primarily use one device or can sync between devices and allow cookies/cache/localStorage to persist, then web apps won't be a problem for you at all. If any of the above doesn't apply - then web apps are a thorn in the side.
CorvusCrypto 10y ago
Cannot agree more! However, I can see the appeal of webapps. Getting started in app development using GUI APIs (cross-platform or target-native) can be a bit intimidating, too. And now we have things like electron which... well to me it's slow, but being able to develop a desktop GUI using html5 and css and JS is appealing. And to be fair, a web app does get the job done, though I have to admit the number of companies that opt for an internal webapp instead of a desktop application is interesting.

by Nadya 10y ago

CardenB 10y ago

Aren't there lots of caveats for each platform when using so called "cross-platform" code?

Nadya 10y ago
Yes - totally! You either limit yourself more or double/triple your work making different system API calls depending what platform you're compiling for. Not too different from tripling your workload to support "offline" applications or dealing with IE/Safari/Chrome/Firefox differences. Most web apps I've come across either don't run in IE or have various bugs/issues in Firefox as most of them are coded on and targeting Chrome due to Chrome's dominance of the web. Which reminds me of people building/testing only on Windows. I will admit that the comparison I'm drawing are "same but different" problems. Browsers are a lot more standardized than operating systems and fixing a difference between Firefox/Chrome is usually a lot more trivial than fixing a difference between Windows/Mac.
CorvusCrypto 10y ago
yes. There can be a lot of boilerplate code present, however in terms of speed, using Qt for instance, can be much faster still than a web application that accomplishes the same task even if you get a huge binary after compilation. Oh and as Nadya said, sometimes this generalization causes issues. Engineering is a game of trade-offs I think :P.
- kaoD 10y ago
  > in terms of speed That's the point. Most applications don't need speed, and most that need it can offload speed-critical code with no significant drawbacks. The web is fast enough for 99% of use cases.
  - CorvusCrypto 10y ago
    I agree. Was there any thought I didn't ;)?
- Klathmon 10y ago
  What's the speed of the install process for those apps? How's the update system work? How quickly can you release them to all platforms? Can they be easily customized and modified by the user? Can they be easily shared? What's the permissions model like? How much can that application access?
  - izacus 10y ago
    Same way as that worked since 1980ties for all millions of home PC users.
    - Klathmon 10y ago
      But compared to the web, native applications are significantly worse in these areas. Especially on that first point. I can go to the vast majority of web apps on just about anything with a browser and get it up and running in less than a second knowing nothing more than a domain name. And there's "cross platform" then there's "cross platform". Something like QT is amazing, but you are still looking at the big-3 desktop OS's, and maybe the big mobile guys if you work for it. A web app includes all of that, plus my TV, my car headunit, and even my damn watch! (I often use a web home-automation app from a browser on my watch, the UI adapts pretty damn well for quick light-flips) Nothing is perfect for everyone, but just because it's been done since the 80's doesn't mean it can't be improved on. And as always it depends on your actual needs. There aren't any "better" and "worse" architectures.

qudat 10y ago

> Disable your web cache and try to use a web application daily. That's like saying "disable a native applications persistent storage and use it daily." It is a meaningless comment.

Nadya 10y ago
I can think of valid reasons to disable browser cache/cookies/localStorage that are completely unrelated to the storage of web app data. It is a side effect of web apps primarily using those methods to store user data when they don't want to store anything server side. They are designed to use local storage! That's one of their "perks". Cookies/cache/localStorage works for most users. I am not most users and I recognize that. My criticism is that the primary method of persistent storage is fundamentally flawed and makes most web apps completely unusable for me. E: I'm that person who carries a USB drive of portable software customized to my preferences primarily to be used on friends' machines or for setting up new machines. Setup once and use everywhere. Browser-based storage needs to be setup everywhere by design. I need to setup at Work and at Home because I refuse to tie my personal Home profile with my Work profile, so there is no "syncing" my profile across devices. If you primarily use one device or can sync between devices and allow cookies/cache/localStorage to persist, then web apps won't be a problem for you at all. If any of the above doesn't apply - then web apps are a thorn in the side.

CorvusCrypto 10y ago

Cannot agree more! However, I can see the appeal of webapps. Getting started in app development using GUI APIs (cross-platform or target-native) can be a bit intimidating, too. And now we have things like electron which... well to me it's slow, but being able to develop a desktop GUI using html5 and css and JS is appealing. And to be fair, a web app does get the job done, though I have to admit the number of companies that opt for an internal webapp instead of a desktop application is interesting.