5 ms·

> any browser with noticeable (maybe 3-5%) market share causes these problems. No. When Web devs test in multiple browsers and find that something doesn't work

by roca 7y ago

> any browser with noticeable (maybe 3-5%) market share causes these problems. No. When Web devs test in multiple browsers and find that something doesn't work in one of them, they will usually pick an alternative solution that does work in all of them, avoiding the bug in the buggy browser, thus avoiding a situation where their site depends on that bug continuing to exist. It doesn't always work out as well as that, but it often does. You can wish for something better than the Web platform, but it's a tall order. You want a platform that's not controlled by a single vendor, that has multiple open-source non-patent-encumbered implementations with significant market share, that is available across just about every device, that has a vibrant content/application ecosystem and developer community, that supports everything from simple static content to extremely complex applications like office suites and 3D games. Good luck with that.

tannhaeuser 7y ago
> extremely complex applications like office suites and 3D games Who really needs that in the browser? Native apps are consistently better in every single aspect - more powerful, more privacy-respecting, more eco-friendly, etc. Except native apps are vanishing - a month ago I wanted to fire-up SketchUp on my old Mac, only to find out that the casual 3D scene is now using 100% webapps. The reason we have these abominations is that they're one of the only avenues left for financing app development (either ad-driven, or in a fremium model) because nobody buys software anymore. And that is indeed a contradictory effect of making software a commodity through F/OSS when the original motive was to empower users. Now I know folks chase browsers and wasm and whatnot as the ultimate cross-platform app delivery platform (coming from a 1990s MS and 2010s iOS app dominance experience) and make browsers even more complex. However I whish they could stop and think about if their work is actually helping the situation. What I think would be helpful is to define a base web profile for content delivery, and then additional profiles for webapps. The "march of progress" argument against versioning and profiling HTML, CSS, devices, and JavaScript we've heard from web standardization efforts isn't convincing at all, and only helps the big guys (basically, only Chrome at this point).
- enraged_camel 7y ago
  >>Who really needs that in the browser? Enterprise IT departments, for one. IT people hate having to install, maintain, update and troubleshoot desktop applications, for obvious reasons. It’s orders of magnitude easier to simply install the app on a web server and have users run it in their web browsers.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    As an IT guy, I disagree, because too many times I've seen things that use a web interface break for esoteric reasons made possible by the ridiculous number of layers involved. Applications people use for work are pretty easy to deal with by comparison, we just bake them into the image and update them only when we need to for a feature or fix. Even then it's usually just a matter of overwriting the application install directory, which we can do remotely, or at the worst running a silent MSI install, again remotely.
    - enraged_camel 7y ago
      I’m simply saying it as someone who has been selling software to enterprise for 15 years. Whenever we tell them that our software has a full-featured web client, it earns a lot of points over the competition.
- bla3 7y ago
  I generally dislike installing software. If there's a webapp that does something I want to do, a native app doing the same thing would have to be much much better to make up for the convenience of using a webapp
treis 7y ago
>No. When Web devs test in multiple browsers and find that something doesn't work in one of them, I question how many developers do that. Especially for smaller sites if it works in Chrome it's generally good enough.
- wilsonrocks 7y ago
  If your client is a large corporation where your contact person can only view your site in IE, you kind of have to make it work...

by roca 7y ago

tannhaeuser 7y ago

> extremely complex applications like office suites and 3D games Who really needs that in the browser? Native apps are consistently better in every single aspect - more powerful, more privacy-respecting, more eco-friendly, etc. Except native apps are vanishing - a month ago I wanted to fire-up SketchUp on my old Mac, only to find out that the casual 3D scene is now using 100% webapps. The reason we have these abominations is that they're one of the only avenues left for financing app development (either ad-driven, or in a fremium model) because nobody buys software anymore. And that is indeed a contradictory effect of making software a commodity through F/OSS when the original motive was to empower users. Now I know folks chase browsers and wasm and whatnot as the ultimate cross-platform app delivery platform (coming from a 1990s MS and 2010s iOS app dominance experience) and make browsers even more complex. However I whish they could stop and think about if their work is actually helping the situation. What I think would be helpful is to define a base web profile for content delivery, and then additional profiles for webapps. The "march of progress" argument against versioning and profiling HTML, CSS, devices, and JavaScript we've heard from web standardization efforts isn't convincing at all, and only helps the big guys (basically, only Chrome at this point).

enraged_camel 7y ago
>>Who really needs that in the browser? Enterprise IT departments, for one. IT people hate having to install, maintain, update and troubleshoot desktop applications, for obvious reasons. It’s orders of magnitude easier to simply install the app on a web server and have users run it in their web browsers.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  As an IT guy, I disagree, because too many times I've seen things that use a web interface break for esoteric reasons made possible by the ridiculous number of layers involved. Applications people use for work are pretty easy to deal with by comparison, we just bake them into the image and update them only when we need to for a feature or fix. Even then it's usually just a matter of overwriting the application install directory, which we can do remotely, or at the worst running a silent MSI install, again remotely.
  - enraged_camel 7y ago
    I’m simply saying it as someone who has been selling software to enterprise for 15 years. Whenever we tell them that our software has a full-featured web client, it earns a lot of points over the competition.
bla3 7y ago
I generally dislike installing software. If there's a webapp that does something I want to do, a native app doing the same thing would have to be much much better to make up for the convenience of using a webapp

treis 7y ago

>No. When Web devs test in multiple browsers and find that something doesn't work in one of them, I question how many developers do that. Especially for smaller sites if it works in Chrome it's generally good enough.

wilsonrocks 7y ago
If your client is a large corporation where your contact person can only view your site in IE, you kind of have to make it work...