3 ms·

On a per-application basis, you are probably correct. But if the additionally abstraction layers allow there to be greater diversity of applications and more to

by ballenf 10y ago

On a per-application basis, you are probably correct. But if the additionally abstraction layers allow there to be greater diversity of applications and more tools for more niche cases because development is easier and/or faster, then that is directly immediately beneficial to the end user. Not to mention faster design iteration, implementation of new features etc.

dom0 10y ago
> On a per-application basis, you are probably correct. But if the additionally abstraction layers allow ... Windows 7 boots in approx. 5 seconds to the desktop (if no password is set), and stuff like Word or Visio starts instantaneously. Web applications on the very same computer are a whole different story. Let's just acknowledge that SaaS is not and never was about any kind of benefits for the user or customer, but just about either centralising resources and services back to the vendor's control and/or increasing money extraction.
- sqeaky 10y ago
  I have never seen word open instantly. When I do it there is always a second or two for teh obnoxious splash screen, then often 10 to 15 seconds waiting for it to do whatever. Notepad++, yeah, that opens nearly instantly. I mostly use Ubuntu and there Libreoffice still has a stupid splash screen. After that though the amount of time is too small for me to count.
sedachv 10y ago
> But if the additionally abstraction layers allow there to be greater diversity of applications and more tools for more niche cases because development is easier and/or faster Please try to find a single example where this is true. Niche cases and greater diversity all come from a lot of work keeping runtimes up to date and APIs backward-compatible. This is only because of Free Software. Trying to credit this to "abstraction layers" is insulting to all of the programmers working on Free Software libraries, compilers, runtimes and operating systems.
- ballenf 10y ago
  What I'm suggesting is that, e.g., there are more Slack, Atom, VS Code, (and those are just Electron apps) etc. and/or those apps have more features because of the speed of development and iteration afforded by these inefficient abstraction layers. So, I can't give a specific example but am instead pointing at the diverse ecosystem of applications and rich functionality. It's logically impossible for me to prove that these apps wouldn't exist without inefficient abstraction layers. It's my supposition, and the developers who write electron apps would probably agree.
  - sedachv 10y ago
    > It's logically impossible for me to prove that these apps wouldn't exist without inefficient abstraction layers. The literally millions of applications not written on top of the specific crapware you list are an existence proof. This was the case even with assembly/Pascal/BASIC applications on microcomputers in the 1980s. Your whole argument is that somehow the web stack is easier to write applications on top of because <insert nonsense adjectives like "diverse" and "rich">. To go back to the Pascal example, a lot of people who program in Delphi strongly disagree even today, and Delphi has been around since 1995. What makes you think that the web stack has a higher speed of development than other software tools? Why do you think that high-speed development depends on inefficient abstractions? That is all total nonsense. There are a lot of problems with the web stack. You need to stop making up bullshit rationalizations and learn about other approaches to software development.
    - ballenf 10y ago
      Very good questions that I can't answer. And it's not my 'bullshit rationalization' -- I'm not the one who decided to build all these products on this "crapware" stack. I'm just suggesting that this stack was chosen for some (hopefully) logical reason. If speed of development isn't the reason, then what is the attraction? I'm serious and curious. I looked through your profile and you clearly know your shit. Are we just in a period of a bad stack being popular and used despite there being other, better options?

by ballenf 10y ago

dom0 10y ago

> On a per-application basis, you are probably correct. But if the additionally abstraction layers allow ... Windows 7 boots in approx. 5 seconds to the desktop (if no password is set), and stuff like Word or Visio starts instantaneously. Web applications on the very same computer are a whole different story. Let's just acknowledge that SaaS is not and never was about any kind of benefits for the user or customer, but just about either centralising resources and services back to the vendor's control and/or increasing money extraction.

sqeaky 10y ago
I have never seen word open instantly. When I do it there is always a second or two for teh obnoxious splash screen, then often 10 to 15 seconds waiting for it to do whatever. Notepad++, yeah, that opens nearly instantly. I mostly use Ubuntu and there Libreoffice still has a stupid splash screen. After that though the amount of time is too small for me to count.

sedachv 10y ago

> But if the additionally abstraction layers allow there to be greater diversity of applications and more tools for more niche cases because development is easier and/or faster Please try to find a single example where this is true. Niche cases and greater diversity all come from a lot of work keeping runtimes up to date and APIs backward-compatible. This is only because of Free Software. Trying to credit this to "abstraction layers" is insulting to all of the programmers working on Free Software libraries, compilers, runtimes and operating systems.

ballenf 10y ago
What I'm suggesting is that, e.g., there are more Slack, Atom, VS Code, (and those are just Electron apps) etc. and/or those apps have more features because of the speed of development and iteration afforded by these inefficient abstraction layers. So, I can't give a specific example but am instead pointing at the diverse ecosystem of applications and rich functionality. It's logically impossible for me to prove that these apps wouldn't exist without inefficient abstraction layers. It's my supposition, and the developers who write electron apps would probably agree.
- sedachv 10y ago
  > It's logically impossible for me to prove that these apps wouldn't exist without inefficient abstraction layers. The literally millions of applications not written on top of the specific crapware you list are an existence proof. This was the case even with assembly/Pascal/BASIC applications on microcomputers in the 1980s. Your whole argument is that somehow the web stack is easier to write applications on top of because <insert nonsense adjectives like "diverse" and "rich">. To go back to the Pascal example, a lot of people who program in Delphi strongly disagree even today, and Delphi has been around since 1995. What makes you think that the web stack has a higher speed of development than other software tools? Why do you think that high-speed development depends on inefficient abstractions? That is all total nonsense. There are a lot of problems with the web stack. You need to stop making up bullshit rationalizations and learn about other approaches to software development.
  - ballenf 10y ago
    Very good questions that I can't answer. And it's not my 'bullshit rationalization' -- I'm not the one who decided to build all these products on this "crapware" stack. I'm just suggesting that this stack was chosen for some (hopefully) logical reason. If speed of development isn't the reason, then what is the attraction? I'm serious and curious. I looked through your profile and you clearly know your shit. Are we just in a period of a bad stack being popular and used despite there being other, better options?