4 ms·

Ok, sorry, bitter old man coming through: this is Web 2.0, not 1.0. For all the buzzwords, Web 2.0 was defined by the dynamic interactive solicitation of user i

Ok, sorry, bitter old man coming through: this is Web 2.0, not 1.0. For all the buzzwords, Web 2.0 was defined by the dynamic interactive solicitation of user input as opposed to Web 1.0 being just static HTML. I don't think we've coined a good catchphrase for fat applications implemented in tons of Javascript with only lightweight AJAX calls to the backend. And then, of course, there's Web 0.1: https://thedailywtf.com/articles/Web_0_0x2e_1 https://thedailywtf.com/articles/Web_0_0x2e_1

aaron-lebo 9y ago
"Web 2.0" came around about 2004ish with Digg and other sites using AJAX. Or at least static content was not the defining factor. There were plenty of forums around in the late 90s with dynamic content.
- mseebach 9y ago
  Wikipedia disagrees. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    Yeah I was looking at that too. The definition is kind of nonsensical. Slashdot met that definition in 1997 but nobody was calling it that at the time. Web 2.0 became a very popular buzzword with Digg, Flickr etc. Or at least that's how I remember it, the author is not "wrong" for referring to it by a very popular definition. Also see: http://www.paulgraham.com/web20.html http://www.paulgraham.com/web20.html I think everyone would agree that democracy and Ajax are elements of "Web 2.0."
    - mseebach 9y ago
      What's nonsensical about it? Slashdot was very avant-garde, so fits well for a term coined in 1999. I agree that AJAX represented somewhat of a technological watershed, but wikis and blogs (which came of age pre-AJAX) represented a social watershed, a much better anchor for the democracy that PG seems to consider only from a technical perspective.
      - aaron-lebo 9y ago
        This is from the criticism section of your link, by a Brit who would know better than most: Nobody really knows what it means... If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along... Web 2.0, for some people, it means moving some of the thinking [to the] client side, so making it more immediate, but the idea of the Web as interaction between people is really what the Web is. That was what it was designed to be... a collaborative space where people can interact. He's also called it jargon. It's not a well-defined term (or at least there are multiple definitions for it).
    - erikpukinskis 9y ago
      You're wrong. Neither Digg nor Flickr had anything to do with AJAX. You're thinking of the "Web App" era precipitated by Google Maps. That's a whole 'nother thing. "Web 2.0" and "crowdsourcing" were more or less one in the same. Maybe people (including Graham) have been trying to revise "Web 2.0" to include more things, to simplify the taxonomy. But when Web 2.0 first started being discussed, it wasn't about JavaScript, it was just about interactivity, specifically writeability.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - sitkack 9y ago
    That article is revisionist garbage.
- sitkack 9y ago
  Web 2.0 is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMLHttpRequest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMLHttpRequest and JS did meaningful work on the client.
CM30 9y ago
Nah, this is as 1.0 as you can get, assuming you're not asking for completely unstyled text. Forum scripts with this sort of simplicity were around for decades, with UBB being created in 1996 (and having significantly more features than this software), and basic scripts like WWWBoard dating back to 1995 or earlier. It was AJAX and processing data via JavaScript that was a web 2.0 thing (for the most part), not just submitting forms in general.
- mseebach 9y ago
  2.0 is not about a switchover date, it's functionality, or even philosophy. Mid-90s forums would be understood as visionary betas of Web 2.0 under this terminology. I concede that Orange Forum is definitely very early 2.0, possibly even very late 1.0, but it it most definitely not "as 1.0 as you can get". That would be static websites with at most a guest book and/or email form.
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  Nope. Flickr was the quintessential Web 2.0 app, and it wasn't very JavaScript heavy at the start. Web 2.0 was fundamentally about user-generated content.
rhizome 9y ago
JS aside, this is an implementation almost to the level of the forums at e.g. Discogs, which are pretty dang Web 1.0 featureless. https://www.discogs.com/group/ https://www.discogs.com/group/ https://www.discogs.com/group/3 https://www.discogs.com/group/3
arkh 9y ago
I'm waiting for Web 3.0: everything goes through websockets. We can also call it newframe (mainframe 2.0) if a new buzzword is needed.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

aaron-lebo 9y ago

"Web 2.0" came around about 2004ish with Digg and other sites using AJAX. Or at least static content was not the defining factor. There were plenty of forums around in the late 90s with dynamic content.

mseebach 9y ago
Wikipedia disagrees. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Yeah I was looking at that too. The definition is kind of nonsensical. Slashdot met that definition in 1997 but nobody was calling it that at the time. Web 2.0 became a very popular buzzword with Digg, Flickr etc. Or at least that's how I remember it, the author is not "wrong" for referring to it by a very popular definition. Also see: http://www.paulgraham.com/web20.html http://www.paulgraham.com/web20.html I think everyone would agree that democracy and Ajax are elements of "Web 2.0."
  - mseebach 9y ago
    What's nonsensical about it? Slashdot was very avant-garde, so fits well for a term coined in 1999. I agree that AJAX represented somewhat of a technological watershed, but wikis and blogs (which came of age pre-AJAX) represented a social watershed, a much better anchor for the democracy that PG seems to consider only from a technical perspective.
    - aaron-lebo 9y ago
      This is from the criticism section of your link, by a Brit who would know better than most: Nobody really knows what it means... If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along... Web 2.0, for some people, it means moving some of the thinking [to the] client side, so making it more immediate, but the idea of the Web as interaction between people is really what the Web is. That was what it was designed to be... a collaborative space where people can interact. He's also called it jargon. It's not a well-defined term (or at least there are multiple definitions for it).
  - erikpukinskis 9y ago
    You're wrong. Neither Digg nor Flickr had anything to do with AJAX. You're thinking of the "Web App" era precipitated by Google Maps. That's a whole 'nother thing. "Web 2.0" and "crowdsourcing" were more or less one in the same. Maybe people (including Graham) have been trying to revise "Web 2.0" to include more things, to simplify the taxonomy. But when Web 2.0 first started being discussed, it wasn't about JavaScript, it was just about interactivity, specifically writeability.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- sitkack 9y ago
  That article is revisionist garbage.
sitkack 9y ago
Web 2.0 is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMLHttpRequest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMLHttpRequest and JS did meaningful work on the client.

CM30 9y ago

Nah, this is as 1.0 as you can get, assuming you're not asking for completely unstyled text. Forum scripts with this sort of simplicity were around for decades, with UBB being created in 1996 (and having significantly more features than this software), and basic scripts like WWWBoard dating back to 1995 or earlier. It was AJAX and processing data via JavaScript that was a web 2.0 thing (for the most part), not just submitting forms in general.

mseebach 9y ago
2.0 is not about a switchover date, it's functionality, or even philosophy. Mid-90s forums would be understood as visionary betas of Web 2.0 under this terminology. I concede that Orange Forum is definitely very early 2.0, possibly even very late 1.0, but it it most definitely not "as 1.0 as you can get". That would be static websites with at most a guest book and/or email form.
erikpukinskis 9y ago
Nope. Flickr was the quintessential Web 2.0 app, and it wasn't very JavaScript heavy at the start. Web 2.0 was fundamentally about user-generated content.

rhizome 9y ago

JS aside, this is an implementation almost to the level of the forums at e.g. Discogs, which are pretty dang Web 1.0 featureless. https://www.discogs.com/group/ https://www.discogs.com/group/ https://www.discogs.com/group/3 https://www.discogs.com/group/3

arkh 9y ago

I'm waiting for Web 3.0: everything goes through websockets. We can also call it newframe (mainframe 2.0) if a new buzzword is needed.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]