4 ms·

And yet, people still put together world class interfaces (and consequently, experiences) using html, css and javascript. Some may not like it, but it works, an

And yet, people still put together world class interfaces (and consequently, experiences) using html, css and javascript. Some may not like it, but it works, and I'm unconvinced using a different programming language will adversely effect end products, or that users will even notice a difference.

bitL 8y ago
I will bite: "world class interfaces" - are you sure? I haven't seen any UI on the web that would at least resemble some interfaces from top end games from 10 years ago that were arguably world class. All I can see lately are clunkers where I have to wait ~10s until the whole page loads and I can finally do something, often with terrible responsivity on a top end i9.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- lucidone 8y ago
  I suppose it depends how we're defining world class. An intensely graphical UI in a game may require the performance native code offers - in that case, absolutely, native will likely outshine the current web stack for developing that specific UI, because the web stack will likely introduce a noticeable difference (ie: lag). However, I think the essence of the 'good-ness' (usability, aesthetics, intuitiveness, whatever) in the majority of interfaces isn't in the extra 10 - 20% of performance you can squeeze out, but in its design. If we entertain that idea, and html/css/js allows you to implement that idea bang-on, and there's a huge ecosystem surrounding this tech in assisting those implementations, and generally page loads aren't ~10s (I haven't experienced that myself - anyone can write bad code in any language, however), what's the trouble?
  - bitL 8y ago
    If a page contains multiple sections it often waits ~10s until it's usable and I have to wait looking at rotating busy signs (compare e.g. NHL.com and its previous version that loaded instantly). Lately I am also getting extremely upset when on a recent i5 NUC just vertically scrolling on a trivially looking page stutters and NUCs fan goes to overdrive. It's getting ridiculous. It's not like you can pan in 2D or 3D an move in any direction, doing creative things, it's just a silly looking page with some title, links on the right and some images and embedded videos (just a large preview pic) in the main body. Everything is getting extremely bloated. Can't wait until I need an overclocked Threadripper with 1Gbit Internet to see what the weather forecast is...
    - orange8 8y ago
      If your "world class" games from 10 years ago were online based, they'd have the same problem. So its not really the web tech you are against, its the client-server application model.
      - ori_b 8y ago
        So, your argument is that it's not the implementation, but that the technology itself is fundamentally broken.
        orange8 8y ago
        That's not my argument, and I can see how it got misunderstood: mean to reply to the grandparent comment, which was comparing the responsiveness of a desktop app where all required resources are installed and locally available, to that of a web application. Whatever you build it with, if the data has to come down "through the wire" then you will wait..
        bitL 8y ago
        My objection was that the previous designs provided exactly the same real-time information, used client-server architecture as well, but were fast.
jksmith 8y ago
World class interfaces compared to what? Desktop? Desktop is still superior.
- batteryhorse 8y ago
  Compared to Gopher. Still not quite as good as the original Macintosh from 1984 though.
cirgue 8y ago
Digging latrines by hand worked well for thousands of years, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t better technologies. The weirdest part of the tech industry by far is this frankly insane “but it works well enough” reaction to criticisms of JS. Seriously, everyone’s all about disruption and crazy-fucking-Byzantine front-end dev frameworks, but when it comes to the actual languages used to produce those frameworks, we have sacred cows? What’s up with that?
- verletx64 8y ago
  In my view, it comes down to a few questions, the most important of which is: What new capabilities does WASM afford us? I by no means think JS is beyond criticism, but much of the excitement about WASM revolves around writing web stuff in other languages. Is that really disruptive?
  - krapp 8y ago
    Web stuff? Probably not. WASM's greatest value on the web is likely to be optimizing high-performance code. Although people want to use it to replace javascript entirely with the compile-to-WASM toolchain of their choice, the actual utility of that is likely to be minimal. Although in that regard, WASM is objectively better as a compile point than "compiling" to javascript. Having an actual bytecode for the web that isn't proprietary or tied to a single language is better, if not necessarily disruptive. What, to me, is potentially disruptive about WASM is the potential it offers for archiving, distributing and running "native" software over the web, or if and when thin native clients become available, eliminating the distinction entirely and having a universal, OS agnostic software distribution and installation model based on web caching. Although we've got a way to go with that, and it may be a stupid and terrible idea. But it would be disruptive.

bitL 8y ago

I will bite: "world class interfaces" - are you sure? I haven't seen any UI on the web that would at least resemble some interfaces from top end games from 10 years ago that were arguably world class. All I can see lately are clunkers where I have to wait ~10s until the whole page loads and I can finally do something, often with terrible responsivity on a top end i9.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
lucidone 8y ago
I suppose it depends how we're defining world class. An intensely graphical UI in a game may require the performance native code offers - in that case, absolutely, native will likely outshine the current web stack for developing that specific UI, because the web stack will likely introduce a noticeable difference (ie: lag). However, I think the essence of the 'good-ness' (usability, aesthetics, intuitiveness, whatever) in the majority of interfaces isn't in the extra 10 - 20% of performance you can squeeze out, but in its design. If we entertain that idea, and html/css/js allows you to implement that idea bang-on, and there's a huge ecosystem surrounding this tech in assisting those implementations, and generally page loads aren't ~10s (I haven't experienced that myself - anyone can write bad code in any language, however), what's the trouble?
- bitL 8y ago
  If a page contains multiple sections it often waits ~10s until it's usable and I have to wait looking at rotating busy signs (compare e.g. NHL.com and its previous version that loaded instantly). Lately I am also getting extremely upset when on a recent i5 NUC just vertically scrolling on a trivially looking page stutters and NUCs fan goes to overdrive. It's getting ridiculous. It's not like you can pan in 2D or 3D an move in any direction, doing creative things, it's just a silly looking page with some title, links on the right and some images and embedded videos (just a large preview pic) in the main body. Everything is getting extremely bloated. Can't wait until I need an overclocked Threadripper with 1Gbit Internet to see what the weather forecast is...
  - orange8 8y ago
    If your "world class" games from 10 years ago were online based, they'd have the same problem. So its not really the web tech you are against, its the client-server application model.
    - ori_b 8y ago
      So, your argument is that it's not the implementation, but that the technology itself is fundamentally broken.
      - orange8 8y ago
        That's not my argument, and I can see how it got misunderstood: mean to reply to the grandparent comment, which was comparing the responsiveness of a desktop app where all required resources are installed and locally available, to that of a web application. Whatever you build it with, if the data has to come down "through the wire" then you will wait..
        bitL 8y ago
        My objection was that the previous designs provided exactly the same real-time information, used client-server architecture as well, but were fast.

jksmith 8y ago

World class interfaces compared to what? Desktop? Desktop is still superior.

batteryhorse 8y ago
Compared to Gopher. Still not quite as good as the original Macintosh from 1984 though.

cirgue 8y ago

Digging latrines by hand worked well for thousands of years, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t better technologies. The weirdest part of the tech industry by far is this frankly insane “but it works well enough” reaction to criticisms of JS. Seriously, everyone’s all about disruption and crazy-fucking-Byzantine front-end dev frameworks, but when it comes to the actual languages used to produce those frameworks, we have sacred cows? What’s up with that?

verletx64 8y ago
In my view, it comes down to a few questions, the most important of which is: What new capabilities does WASM afford us? I by no means think JS is beyond criticism, but much of the excitement about WASM revolves around writing web stuff in other languages. Is that really disruptive?
- krapp 8y ago
  Web stuff? Probably not. WASM's greatest value on the web is likely to be optimizing high-performance code. Although people want to use it to replace javascript entirely with the compile-to-WASM toolchain of their choice, the actual utility of that is likely to be minimal. Although in that regard, WASM is objectively better as a compile point than "compiling" to javascript. Having an actual bytecode for the web that isn't proprietary or tied to a single language is better, if not necessarily disruptive. What, to me, is potentially disruptive about WASM is the potential it offers for archiving, distributing and running "native" software over the web, or if and when thin native clients become available, eliminating the distinction entirely and having a universal, OS agnostic software distribution and installation model based on web caching. Although we've got a way to go with that, and it may be a stupid and terrible idea. But it would be disruptive.