4 ms·

"[P]ainlessly." "The web just works." "Cross platform." "Mac is better." These are all just not accurate. The last is objectively not true in the context you u

by sidlls 8y ago

"[P]ainlessly." "The web just works." "Cross platform." "Mac is better." These are all just not accurate. The last is objectively not true in the context you use it (Macs account for a tiny fraction of all desktop and laptop computers in use, the vast majority of which run Windows or Linux in the case of servers). There are a number of web "applications" which only work on one or a small number of browsers, which have complete features on just one browser (e.g. Slack and calls, which work on Chrome, not Firefox on Mac), and many if not most such "applications" have a lot of very complicated, poorly conceived JavaScript code backing them.

api 8y ago
You're missing the point. If a web application is well written it does "just work" from most users' perspective. Whether or not the code behind it is a mess is not relevant to the user. They don't see it. They just go to a URL and they're in business. A superior native app requires a download and an install. That's 2-3 more steps. In a corporate environment that may require an IT support ticket and an argument with a sighing grumbling IT person about supporting "more software" that will "break your machine" and "has it been scanned for malware?" I know that I am very picky about what I install on my computer. That's because I need my computer to work and I've had broken apps and junky installers wreck machines or introduce instability. Even if they don't wreck machines they leave clutter everywhere and are sometimes a pain to uninstall. Then there's the security surface area issue. So there's many reasons users resist native apps: hassle, security, system integrity, etc. It's a tough problem. Mobile OSes made a serious attempt to solve it and made a lot of headway there, but even that has collapsed. Look at the security/privacy nightmare that is mobile today. I am now very resistant to installing mobile apps because I assume they'll be reporting my location to advertisers, sucking down all my contacts, etc., so I only install them if I really need them. I prefer the web for most things because the web is a VM that strongly limits access and when I close the browser the app is gone.
- sidlls 8y ago
  I'm not missing the point. I've just been around a while and have seen this fat client/thin client, "painless" cross platform, and other related buzzword soup discussion time and again. Too many times to be suckered by the modern incarnation.
  - api 8y ago
    I hear you, but the alternative is to write your app four times. That's a non-starter.

by sidlls 8y ago

api 8y ago

You're missing the point. If a web application is well written it does "just work" from most users' perspective. Whether or not the code behind it is a mess is not relevant to the user. They don't see it. They just go to a URL and they're in business. A superior native app requires a download and an install. That's 2-3 more steps. In a corporate environment that may require an IT support ticket and an argument with a sighing grumbling IT person about supporting "more software" that will "break your machine" and "has it been scanned for malware?" I know that I am very picky about what I install on my computer. That's because I need my computer to work and I've had broken apps and junky installers wreck machines or introduce instability. Even if they don't wreck machines they leave clutter everywhere and are sometimes a pain to uninstall. Then there's the security surface area issue. So there's many reasons users resist native apps: hassle, security, system integrity, etc. It's a tough problem. Mobile OSes made a serious attempt to solve it and made a lot of headway there, but even that has collapsed. Look at the security/privacy nightmare that is mobile today. I am now very resistant to installing mobile apps because I assume they'll be reporting my location to advertisers, sucking down all my contacts, etc., so I only install them if I really need them. I prefer the web for most things because the web is a VM that strongly limits access and when I close the browser the app is gone.

sidlls 8y ago
I'm not missing the point. I've just been around a while and have seen this fat client/thin client, "painless" cross platform, and other related buzzword soup discussion time and again. Too many times to be suckered by the modern incarnation.
- api 8y ago
  I hear you, but the alternative is to write your app four times. That's a non-starter.