4 ms·
It's definitely possible but we went through all of this a decade ago with Adobe Air, Microsoft Silverlight, and JavaFX. Nearly a decade before that, in the ear
by meritt 9y ago
It's definitely possible but we went through all of this a decade ago with Adobe Air, Microsoft Silverlight, and JavaFX. Nearly a decade before that, in the early 2000s, we went through this with Macromedia Flash, Java Applets, and Microsoft ActiveX.
Trying to replace native applications with runs-in-the-browser RIAs is nothing new, but we're at least finally agreeing on the language/implementation, so maybe this time will truly be different.
- mschuster91 9y ago> Trying to replace native applications with runs-in-the-browser RIAs is nothing new There is one thing that is new: the users do not need to install a separate piece of software, and it's kept up to date by the browser vendor - which means for enterprise users one less piece of software to certify/test for updates/compatibility, and for private users one software less which installed adware on each update (Java IIRC still does) and has that "risky" association like Flash does.
- badsectoracula 9y agoFlash Player had something like 97% penetration, so for all intents and purposes it was something that you could always consider as being "there" - and users didn't mind having to install it. I think a lot of techies underestimate people's willingness to install stuff on their PCs, especially when that stuff is needed to do tasks they really want and are a couple of clicks away.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y agoPeople use the "average user" as a strawman. He is simultaneously too stupid not to install malware that claims to be a fax, and yet unwilling to exert even the slightest effort to install software he needs to get things done.
- mschuster91 9y ago> and yet unwilling to exert even the slightest effort to install software he needs to get things done. Enterprises often disabled (or heavily whitelisted) both Flash and Java in the browser due to malware concerns as they were (and still are) an effective vector for malware.
- solarkraft 9y agoThe projects you mentioned can also solve the portability and distribution parts for apps (like browsers can now), but that's not what the web originally was intended to don This time will truly be different because it developed out of a document viewer.
- tonyedgecombe 9y agoI'm not sure why you are down voted as all that is true and easily verified.
- int_19h 9y agoIt's not comparable for one simple reason - all the listed techs worked in the browser, but they didn't come with the browser (or, at least, with all browsers). WebAssembly does - and because most browsers auto-update these days, users get on the bandwagon without doing anything at all.
- tonyedgecombe 9y agoI don't think there were many mainstream browsers without Flash, ActiveX was included in IE when it was the dominant browser.
- rrobukef 9y agoin addition, each had an separate graphics api. Which was imperative, not as stable nor backward compatible nor as battlefield-tested as html. Each keyword is a difference between all previous approaches versus html. And sometimes/often regarded as better. Every programmer knows html though not the frameworks. But these are seperate.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y agoYeah, because I can so write a website and only test it in one browser and be sure it will work on all of them, right?
- rrobukef 9y agoMostly, which is enough to attract lots and lots of amateurs and high-schoolers. Then there's also the standardization committees and special frameworks. Also the two most popular browsers are multiplatform. You can write a website and make it work on whatever computer you need.