It'll take time for the landscape to develop, but I'd like to add some additional arguments for a web-based application stack. Websites from the 1990s still re

It'll take time for the landscape to develop, but I'd like to add some additional arguments for a web-based application stack. Websites from the 1990s still render and function just fine in modern browsers. How many software applications from the 90s can you still use effectively on your laptop or smartphone? If we collectively want to create and share data that will be accessible to older and younger generations, and build applications which stand the test of time, it'd help if the foundations we're building on (i.e. native SDKs, APIs, file formats, and platforms) stop shifting every few years. I'd argue that even with the evolution of web/JS frameworks, the underlying HTML+JS+CSS stack remains more stable than most native development platforms (with the possible exception of the Win32 API which has been impressively maintained, and automake which has done great things to make Unix software portable). Performance/memory impact is a good area to investigate further, as are any remaining areas where there's a gap between native and web-foundation user experiences. I totally agree with your criticisms there. Since many applications are built using web technology I'd expect the stack has developed (and will continue to develop) good resilience against security vulnerabilities. Driving down developer costs seem to me like a beneficial goal and I don't necessarily think that criticizing a desire for low-cost tooling and application delivery is a positive standalone argument. There may be a few developers who see themselves as more important than their users, but that will become apparent to users over time. Given low-cost development tools there can easily be alternative applications for people to switch to which better respect user needs and goals.