22 ms·

We can assume that many HN readers are closely related to Web programming. Either they do it themselves or their wage gets paid because their employers' busines

We can assume that many HN readers are closely related to Web programming. Either they do it themselves or their wage gets paid because their employers' business depends on Web apps. If the article is right that it is close to impossible to hire a Web developer that understands all Web security issues and knows to mitigate them, it does not come as a surprise that there is fierce criticism to the article. It basically says you are doing a hopeless job and your employers' business model is flawed. I'm not a Web developer, but I find the article very convincing. From what I follow headlines Web programming changes very quickly and the frameworks change all the time. Meaning that smart people are not happy with what is available, writing new stuff. Yet I don't think security has been the primary driver for any new framework. They are still parsing text. So let's see whether the author has any fundamentally different approach in his next post (if anybody remembers to read it) Disclaimer: I work in embedded and our company advertises to be very secure. I know that our security sucks.

pendar747 9y ago
The author definitely has valid arguments about web's security but I think the rest of his arguments are all lazy, anecdotal and not accurate. Comparing Google Docs to an old version of Office for example. They are incomparable firstly because they are running on completely different platforms. Office would take a long time to install while Google Docs are available almost instantly, they can be updated almost instantly and secondly include many more benefits that come with being part of the web. I have myself developed GUI application using author's beloved C++ and Qt and I can admit its a far better designed and convenient experience compared to the web, but it's hardly possible to achieve the same amount of flexibility in UI/UX design that is available on the Web. I think the fact that things are changing so fast, standards are badly designed (at least initially) and there are so many inconsistencies are all only because web is a fast moving platform that requires the consensus of many players to happen and move forward. Also the amount of commercial interest and developers working on the web is incomparable to other platforms, hence the fast moving nature.
- scarface74 9y ago
  The author definitely has valid arguments about web's security but I think the rest of his arguments are all lazy, anecdotal and not accurate. Comparing Google Docs to an old version of Office for example. They are incomparable firstly because they are running on completely different platforms. Office would take a long time to install while Google Docs are available almost instantly, they can be updated almost instantly and secondly include many more benefits that come with being part of the web. But even Google knew not to depend on the universality of web apps on mobile - they have native apps for both Android and iOS. Aren’t we already at a tipping point where most web access is done on mobile devices?
- mwcampbell 9y ago
  > flexibility in UI/UX design that is available on the Web If you take advantage of that flexibility to create a UX that's very different from the standard widgets, it's likely to be inaccessible to blind users with screen readers. Check out this rant on HN from a blind friend of mine (a few paragraphs in for the part that's most relevant to this thread): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14580342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14580342 As far as I know, the most accessible cross-platform UI toolkit for the desktop is SWT. It uses native widgets for most things, and actually gasp implements the host platforms' accessibility APIs for the custom widgets. But, I can hear it now, somebody will say they hate SWT-based applications because they wreak of Windows 95. Oh well, fashion trumps all, I guess.

pendar747 9y ago

The author definitely has valid arguments about web's security but I think the rest of his arguments are all lazy, anecdotal and not accurate. Comparing Google Docs to an old version of Office for example. They are incomparable firstly because they are running on completely different platforms. Office would take a long time to install while Google Docs are available almost instantly, they can be updated almost instantly and secondly include many more benefits that come with being part of the web. I have myself developed GUI application using author's beloved C++ and Qt and I can admit its a far better designed and convenient experience compared to the web, but it's hardly possible to achieve the same amount of flexibility in UI/UX design that is available on the Web. I think the fact that things are changing so fast, standards are badly designed (at least initially) and there are so many inconsistencies are all only because web is a fast moving platform that requires the consensus of many players to happen and move forward. Also the amount of commercial interest and developers working on the web is incomparable to other platforms, hence the fast moving nature.

scarface74 9y ago
The author definitely has valid arguments about web's security but I think the rest of his arguments are all lazy, anecdotal and not accurate. Comparing Google Docs to an old version of Office for example. They are incomparable firstly because they are running on completely different platforms. Office would take a long time to install while Google Docs are available almost instantly, they can be updated almost instantly and secondly include many more benefits that come with being part of the web. But even Google knew not to depend on the universality of web apps on mobile - they have native apps for both Android and iOS. Aren’t we already at a tipping point where most web access is done on mobile devices?
mwcampbell 9y ago
> flexibility in UI/UX design that is available on the Web If you take advantage of that flexibility to create a UX that's very different from the standard widgets, it's likely to be inaccessible to blind users with screen readers. Check out this rant on HN from a blind friend of mine (a few paragraphs in for the part that's most relevant to this thread): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14580342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14580342 As far as I know, the most accessible cross-platform UI toolkit for the desktop is SWT. It uses native widgets for most things, and actually gasp implements the host platforms' accessibility APIs for the custom widgets. But, I can hear it now, somebody will say they hate SWT-based applications because they wreak of Windows 95. Oh well, fashion trumps all, I guess.