4 ms·

With an app-centric view of the Web like that, you can only come to the conclusion that the Web is broken. When in reality your premise is false: the Web is a d

With an app-centric view of the Web like that, you can only come to the conclusion that the Web is broken. When in reality your premise is false: the Web is a document-centric self-publishing mechanism. That you're hell-bent to using it at as application delivery platform doesn't make it any more reasonable to judge the Web for something it simply isn't designed for. It's not a question of immaturity either: the Web has been in the making for almost 25 years; yet the newest mainstream Web frameworks (eg. React) still build on a DOM rather than a more appropriate scene graph model such as the one Flash had 15 years ago. The problem isn't the Web, but people wanting to sell Web apps, yet still wanting to free-ride on the popularity and one-time-success of the Web. Why not address this at WHATWG (as in "Web Hypertext Application Working Group")? It would be easier for both camps because the document-oriented Web doesn't have to look after the incidental complexity introduced with overreaching Web standards and CSS. Edit: see also "The Cult of the Complex" at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17214045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17214045

naasking 8y ago
> When in reality your premise is false: the Web is a document-centric self-publishing mechanism. That you're hell-bent to using it at as application delivery platform doesn't make it any more reasonable to judge the Web for something it simply isn't designed for. The distinction between app-oriented and document-oriented is largely artificial anyway. They give you slightly different primitives, but the same set of programs are expressible in either paradigm (like the equivalency of Turing machines and the lambda calculus). The main problem of HTML+CSS for the web is the inconsistencies in element styling and cross-browser support. You still can't apply some styles to buttons in some browsers, for instance. And this applies to both document publishing and web app development. Things are much better with flexbox and soon CSS grid, but there's still considerable knowledge required to avoid the many pitfalls that should never have existed to begin with.
0x445442 8y ago
I can't up-vote this comment enough. I've been saying web apps are broken for about 15 years. In the beginning everyone gets bent out of shape over technologies attempting to standardize like Flash and Applets. And since then everyone bitches about the disjointed, non-standard tech landscape. It's like that whole community is schizophrenic.
balfirevic 8y ago
> The problem isn't the Web, but people wanting to sell Web apps That is backwards, I think. People want to use web to get their applications (for mostly good reasons). Of course developers will make them. > yet still wanting to free-ride on the popularity "Free riding" concept sounds misused here. > Why not address this at WHATWG (as in "Web Hypertext Application Working Group") How would that work? I want to make a SaaS app to solve some problem, but instead I write letters to WHATWG to do... what?
- tannhaeuser 8y ago
  My comment wasn't addressed at practitioners developing web apps so much as a response to principled criticism of the Web architecture as application development platform. As the author of TFA says he's coming from a Windows desktop app development background, praising early-90s RAD environments such as FoxPro for their superior workflow and adequateness for the job of creating business apps. Then why not use those tools rather than the Web? But the author insists > The last thing I want to see is us going back to native development as the first line for development. The Web has always been the future for application development and I believe it will go all the way in the end. I believe in the Web as a platform and I want it to stay as the dominant platform. Why does the Web have to be everything to everybody, gaining incredible complexity to the point that it's useless as a standard because we're never going to see new independent implementations from scratch? Re WHATWG: I don't think HTML5 is bad, but it must be said that it was the late 2000s "HTML5 rocks" propaganda making plugins (Flash and Java) unfashionable for better or worse. Turned out the offered overlapping and partially implemented alternatives (Canvas API, declarative CSS animations and shapes, SVG) were lacking, and didn't address the principal use cases. Those being describing highly interactive apps, controlled piercing of Web sandboxes for integration with native file systems and devices, etc.
  - balfirevic 8y ago
    > Then why not use those tools rather than the Web? I think the author of the article writes from the app developer perspective - his users are on the web and due to it's reach he's stuck there. He does appear to be cheering on the web as the application platform, but that might be the most reasonable way forward just because of it's momentum. And it is somewhat decent app development platform. All of this comes at the cost of large amount of complexity, there I agree.
danShumway 8y ago
Hot take: it's a mistake to assume that document models don't apply to many apps. Most of the apps that I use on my computer are fancy ways to process and display document-like information. Even many of the games I play fall into this category. I would prefer for them not to get off of the web train, but rather to get rid of their app mentalities and embrace the principles they're complaining about on the web. Progressive enhancement, content/styling separation, user control over system access: these are all principles that I want in the majority of my apps. The web isn't broken, and its philosophies should be used for many (not all, but many) apps. But the way we build apps is broken, so people assume the web either needs to change or that it shouldn't be used as a development platform. The web is built around this concept where developers have very little control over the software they write. The tools seem weird and annoying and unnecessarily complicated because they're solving problems that most developers don't realize they have.

naasking 8y ago

> When in reality your premise is false: the Web is a document-centric self-publishing mechanism. That you're hell-bent to using it at as application delivery platform doesn't make it any more reasonable to judge the Web for something it simply isn't designed for. The distinction between app-oriented and document-oriented is largely artificial anyway. They give you slightly different primitives, but the same set of programs are expressible in either paradigm (like the equivalency of Turing machines and the lambda calculus). The main problem of HTML+CSS for the web is the inconsistencies in element styling and cross-browser support. You still can't apply some styles to buttons in some browsers, for instance. And this applies to both document publishing and web app development. Things are much better with flexbox and soon CSS grid, but there's still considerable knowledge required to avoid the many pitfalls that should never have existed to begin with.

0x445442 8y ago

I can't up-vote this comment enough. I've been saying web apps are broken for about 15 years. In the beginning everyone gets bent out of shape over technologies attempting to standardize like Flash and Applets. And since then everyone bitches about the disjointed, non-standard tech landscape. It's like that whole community is schizophrenic.

balfirevic 8y ago

> The problem isn't the Web, but people wanting to sell Web apps That is backwards, I think. People want to use web to get their applications (for mostly good reasons). Of course developers will make them. > yet still wanting to free-ride on the popularity "Free riding" concept sounds misused here. > Why not address this at WHATWG (as in "Web Hypertext Application Working Group") How would that work? I want to make a SaaS app to solve some problem, but instead I write letters to WHATWG to do... what?

tannhaeuser 8y ago
My comment wasn't addressed at practitioners developing web apps so much as a response to principled criticism of the Web architecture as application development platform. As the author of TFA says he's coming from a Windows desktop app development background, praising early-90s RAD environments such as FoxPro for their superior workflow and adequateness for the job of creating business apps. Then why not use those tools rather than the Web? But the author insists > The last thing I want to see is us going back to native development as the first line for development. The Web has always been the future for application development and I believe it will go all the way in the end. I believe in the Web as a platform and I want it to stay as the dominant platform. Why does the Web have to be everything to everybody, gaining incredible complexity to the point that it's useless as a standard because we're never going to see new independent implementations from scratch? Re WHATWG: I don't think HTML5 is bad, but it must be said that it was the late 2000s "HTML5 rocks" propaganda making plugins (Flash and Java) unfashionable for better or worse. Turned out the offered overlapping and partially implemented alternatives (Canvas API, declarative CSS animations and shapes, SVG) were lacking, and didn't address the principal use cases. Those being describing highly interactive apps, controlled piercing of Web sandboxes for integration with native file systems and devices, etc.
- balfirevic 8y ago
  > Then why not use those tools rather than the Web? I think the author of the article writes from the app developer perspective - his users are on the web and due to it's reach he's stuck there. He does appear to be cheering on the web as the application platform, but that might be the most reasonable way forward just because of it's momentum. And it is somewhat decent app development platform. All of this comes at the cost of large amount of complexity, there I agree.

danShumway 8y ago

Hot take: it's a mistake to assume that document models don't apply to many apps. Most of the apps that I use on my computer are fancy ways to process and display document-like information. Even many of the games I play fall into this category. I would prefer for them not to get off of the web train, but rather to get rid of their app mentalities and embrace the principles they're complaining about on the web. Progressive enhancement, content/styling separation, user control over system access: these are all principles that I want in the majority of my apps. The web isn't broken, and its philosophies should be used for many (not all, but many) apps. But the way we build apps is broken, so people assume the web either needs to change or that it shouldn't be used as a development platform. The web is built around this concept where developers have very little control over the software they write. The tools seem weird and annoying and unnecessarily complicated because they're solving problems that most developers don't realize they have.