4 ms·

HTML is inferior than a technology that is purpose built. It was not originally designed to handle the job it does today. It is possible to create a much better

HTML is inferior than a technology that is purpose built. It was not originally designed to handle the job it does today. It is possible to create a much better user experience with eg. C# using some network code to talk to the server than trying to shoe horn an application over HTML just because it hides the low level complexities of E.g C#/C++ communicating with a server. This is a classic case of HTML/web apps are easier to produce (does that even make them inferior?) than custom built software, but it is more efficient to develop a web app, and therefore that is what business/industry has done.

BjoernKW 9y ago
HTML is not inferior it's different. In the late 90s some people said the same about Java and Java applets in particular. The UX of those however often was significantly worse than that of roughly equivalent (but at that time less dynamic) web applications. Apart from the usual benefits like being able to easily link to and consume resources HTML affords you a great deal of flexibility. Desktop UIs for very good reasons both follow OS-specific style guides and if cross-platform capable also have to settle for the lowest common denominator. As for your last point: Absolutely. Being accessible and easy to create perhaps is the single most important feature of HTML.
- laythea 9y ago
  If you are trying to tell me that HTML was purpose built for the task that it does today, then I'm sorry but I do not agree.
  - BjoernKW 9y ago
    Tools can be used beyond the area they were originally intended for and still be useful and appropriate. Tim Berners-Lee probably didn't have single-page applications in mind when he invented HTML but hyperlinked documents are also inherently more dynamic and application-like than traditional documents. Just think about HyperCard, which is a similar concept HTML and the World Wide Web were inspired by. So, yes in a way indeed HTML was also built for many of the purposes it's used for today.
sureaboutthis 9y ago
C#, and maybe all programming language, are not designed for structuring documents inside a browser either. That is what HTML is for, not display or applications or communication, etc.
- laythea 9y ago
  I agree. HTML for documents. C# etc for applications.

BjoernKW 9y ago

HTML is not inferior it's different. In the late 90s some people said the same about Java and Java applets in particular. The UX of those however often was significantly worse than that of roughly equivalent (but at that time less dynamic) web applications. Apart from the usual benefits like being able to easily link to and consume resources HTML affords you a great deal of flexibility. Desktop UIs for very good reasons both follow OS-specific style guides and if cross-platform capable also have to settle for the lowest common denominator. As for your last point: Absolutely. Being accessible and easy to create perhaps is the single most important feature of HTML.

laythea 9y ago
If you are trying to tell me that HTML was purpose built for the task that it does today, then I'm sorry but I do not agree.
- BjoernKW 9y ago
  Tools can be used beyond the area they were originally intended for and still be useful and appropriate. Tim Berners-Lee probably didn't have single-page applications in mind when he invented HTML but hyperlinked documents are also inherently more dynamic and application-like than traditional documents. Just think about HyperCard, which is a similar concept HTML and the World Wide Web were inspired by. So, yes in a way indeed HTML was also built for many of the purposes it's used for today.

sureaboutthis 9y ago

C#, and maybe all programming language, are not designed for structuring documents inside a browser either. That is what HTML is for, not display or applications or communication, etc.

laythea 9y ago
I agree. HTML for documents. C# etc for applications.