4 ms·

Can we please stop calling Webapps that come with the whole browser desktop apps? The fact that you give me to install a dedicated browser for your web app does

by nickpp 9y ago

Can we please stop calling Webapps that come with the whole browser desktop apps? The fact that you give me to install a dedicated browser for your web app does not magically make it desktop app. It makes it a worse web app, which does not even share the browser runtime with other web apps. Desktop apps are supposed to be: native code, well integrated in the OS, still working when the net is down and using system widgets and OS look&feel.

fron 9y ago
> Desktop apps are supposed to be: native code That excludes every single .NET application. > well integrated in the OS Don't even know what you mean by this. > still working when the net is down Not necessarily, a "native" app for Signal still wouldn't work if the net was down. > and using system widgets and OS look&feel I guess that excludes pretty much anything built with Qt.
- AckSyn 9y ago
  .NET is included with Windows and can't be removed.
  - fron 9y ago
    Correct, but IL isn't 'native code'
- raarts 9y ago
  Well call me picky, but I find electron apps to be super wasteful and gobbling up memory like there's no tomorrow. Sure I can understand the reasons behind it, it's JavaScript, programmers for that are abundant, is multi platform because web, but still. If you look at the functionality offered versus the resources used it's just ridiculous. I'd like to see a graph of code/memory used vs unused in such binaries.
  - fron 9y ago
    I completely agree that most of them are extreme memory hogs. I was just pointing out that the previous commenter's definition of a desktop application made almost no sense to me.
bad_user 9y ago
That might be your definition of it, but it's in general wishful thinking. For me desktop apps are apps that run on my desktop computer, requiring an installation process instead of being loaded via an URL and not subject to the browser's sandbox. I've had access or owned desktop computers in various shapes and sizes ever since 1993 and let me tell you, since then until now the notion that desktop apps have a unified look and feel is a really recent phenomenon, that happened due to Apple, OS X and the iPhone. Yes, even Windows 3.1 had standard widgets but historically standard widgets haven't been expressive enough and many developers did not care anyway, especially since most apps were reincarnations of former DOS apps or ports from other platforms. And then the birth of Java made it much worse. E.g. the most popular MP3 player ever on Windows has been Winamp. Besides the file opening dialog, there was nothing standard about it. Most popular chat apps several years back? ICQ and Yahoo's Messenger. Have you been acquainted with their UIs? In terms of nativeness, let me tell you, the web-enabled Facebook Messenger and Hangouts are improvements, because at least they don't mess up the text rendering.
- lloeki 9y ago
  > the notion that desktop apps have a unified look and feel is a really recent phenomenon, that happened due to Apple, OS X and the iPhone. The Apple HIG dates as far back as the Macintosh. That’s 1987[0]. Visual and behavioral consistency have always been a staple of good design for those who cared. [0]: https://guidebookgallery.org/books/applehumaninterfaceguidelines https://guidebookgallery.org/books/applehumaninterfaceguidel...
  - abiox 9y ago
    i think this is saying a different thing. there is a certain section of third party app-developers that argue that app ux should absolutely emulate the host operating system. when this isn't sufficiently expressive, new interface elements should be designed such that they blend in naturally (ie, resemble what likely would have been the os-developer's choices).

by nickpp 9y ago

fron 9y ago

> Desktop apps are supposed to be: native code That excludes every single .NET application. > well integrated in the OS Don't even know what you mean by this. > still working when the net is down Not necessarily, a "native" app for Signal still wouldn't work if the net was down. > and using system widgets and OS look&feel I guess that excludes pretty much anything built with Qt.

AckSyn 9y ago
.NET is included with Windows and can't be removed.
- fron 9y ago
  Correct, but IL isn't 'native code'
raarts 9y ago
Well call me picky, but I find electron apps to be super wasteful and gobbling up memory like there's no tomorrow. Sure I can understand the reasons behind it, it's JavaScript, programmers for that are abundant, is multi platform because web, but still. If you look at the functionality offered versus the resources used it's just ridiculous. I'd like to see a graph of code/memory used vs unused in such binaries.
- fron 9y ago
  I completely agree that most of them are extreme memory hogs. I was just pointing out that the previous commenter's definition of a desktop application made almost no sense to me.

bad_user 9y ago

That might be your definition of it, but it's in general wishful thinking. For me desktop apps are apps that run on my desktop computer, requiring an installation process instead of being loaded via an URL and not subject to the browser's sandbox. I've had access or owned desktop computers in various shapes and sizes ever since 1993 and let me tell you, since then until now the notion that desktop apps have a unified look and feel is a really recent phenomenon, that happened due to Apple, OS X and the iPhone. Yes, even Windows 3.1 had standard widgets but historically standard widgets haven't been expressive enough and many developers did not care anyway, especially since most apps were reincarnations of former DOS apps or ports from other platforms. And then the birth of Java made it much worse. E.g. the most popular MP3 player ever on Windows has been Winamp. Besides the file opening dialog, there was nothing standard about it. Most popular chat apps several years back? ICQ and Yahoo's Messenger. Have you been acquainted with their UIs? In terms of nativeness, let me tell you, the web-enabled Facebook Messenger and Hangouts are improvements, because at least they don't mess up the text rendering.

lloeki 9y ago
> the notion that desktop apps have a unified look and feel is a really recent phenomenon, that happened due to Apple, OS X and the iPhone. The Apple HIG dates as far back as the Macintosh. That’s 1987[0]. Visual and behavioral consistency have always been a staple of good design for those who cared. [0]: https://guidebookgallery.org/books/applehumaninterfaceguidelines https://guidebookgallery.org/books/applehumaninterfaceguidel...
- abiox 9y ago
  i think this is saying a different thing. there is a certain section of third party app-developers that argue that app ux should absolutely emulate the host operating system. when this isn't sufficiently expressive, new interface elements should be designed such that they blend in naturally (ie, resemble what likely would have been the os-developer's choices).