3 ms·

I think you misunderstood the article. Video is not king - it's important, but it has it's place. HN wouldn't be better if all comments were videos. In general

by andreyf 18y ago

I think you misunderstood the article. Video is not king - it's important, but it has it's place. HN wouldn't be better if all comments were videos. In general, you seem to have missed the point of this article - it isn't comparing RIA's and JS, it's comparing 'old' JS frameworks and new ones, and the new ones are making big progress to being desktop apps. I admit to knowing little about how people are developing these apps... I don't mean this personally, but then why are you talking about this? Can we all agree to talk about things that we know about? I think that heuristic will benefit this community most.

bporterfield 18y ago
I do know little about the development process, but that wasn't the point of my comment. I think it's perfectly acceptable to discuss things that justify general points without having in-depth knowledge about the specifics. Nor was my point that video is necessary for every web app. These are points that, when taken as a whole, explain why I think the new frameworks are not a revolution in web app development. Web apps are dominated by Flash, and to a lesser extent, Silverlight, for a reason. The hype around these new frameworks just isn't justified. If the title was more to the effect of 'new frameworks are a good step forward in the javascript-based web-app approach' then I'd happily concede. The title says completely changing the web app industry!! The point of the article seems, to me, to be about how these new frameworks allow for simple web-app (aka RIA, more or less) development with more support from big players. My point is that this isn't as much of a game-changer as some people seem to think.