This reads like an article about web applications written by somebody who doesn't have any meaningful amount of experience writing web applications (which I've

This reads like an article about web applications written by somebody who doesn't have any meaningful amount of experience writing web applications (which I've just seen he admits further down in the comments). The number of false statements and false assumptions in just the first section is enough to make it hard for me to continue reading, since it's supposedly the foundation for the rest of the suggestions. > Web apps can't use real sockets. Because security is an important consideration, and websockets are designed to live within the constraints of the same-origin policy, which helps immensely in creating apps that are secure by default. > Things as basic as UI components are a disaster zone. [Links to article about web components] Web components are a failed/failing/doomed (IMO) proposed standard and are nothing but an implementation of the idea of UI components. The design of web components is about building component object hierarchies, and is doomed to fail (IMO) in a markup language built around content composition. Saying UI components are a disaster because (one guy says, though I agree) web components are a disaster is like saying "a square won't fit here, so obviously no rectangles will fit." > HTML5 has peer to peer video streaming No, it doesn't. Browsers support the completely-separate WebRTC specification and its related javascript APIs. No HTML spec says anything about WebRTC. My suggestion would be that if you want to replace something, you need to actually grok it first, or at least have a sufficient understanding of the complexities (and the reasons they exist) you're trying to argue against. Otherwise it's way too easy to point out that you don't really know what you're asking to replace, and your opinions, while potentially valid, are going to be tossed with the rest of the bath water.