3 ms·

This debate is really about what people want and how they envision the Web. > Who's to say digital text has to stick to a 80s concept of casual academic publis

This debate is really about what people want and how they envision the Web. > Who's to say digital text has to stick to a 80s concept of casual academic publishing? Hypertext is a valid business case as it was back then and it still is today. What changed is how the Web evolved from a small group of academics and engineers 30 years ago into the billions that it connects today. It's not just hypertext. It's hypertext and every other conceivable business case which is being shoehorned into the browser. The Web originally wasn't conceived to provide affordances that allow for "rich media experiences". Foundational technologies - HTTP, HTML, CSS, JS,... - weren't originally designed to build complex user interfaces and applications. Yet, as more and more and more people got connected: that's exactly what they wanted. Remember Flash? Or Java applets? Or Silverlight? Those were hailed as additional technologies that would merge complex user interfaces into the Web. Macromedia coined the term "Rich Web Applications" back in 2002. All of them failed for various reasons. Ever since the Web Standards moving of the mid-00's, communities of designers have taken CSS and HTML and tried to bend and use them in any way possible to bring visually stunning experiences on the Web. This is where you will find the direct roots of many ideas and dynamics that are currently in vogue. It's their influence, as well as other dynamics - e.g. the introduction of the smartphone, the rise of big tech - that has defined how browser technology has evolved. Over the past decade, browser vendors have tacked on additional browser API's on top of the original, decade old foundations, while communities of frontend developers have spawned ever intricate constellations of interlocking JavaScript libraries and frameworks that specifically try to break out of how the Web originally was intended to work. Some things have become easier as specifications evolved a bit (e.g. CSS3). But at the end of the day, your browser still needs to download HTML, JS and CSS, parse all of that, execute and render it onto a canvas. Even so, it's safe to say that this approach is miles removed from what native applications offer in terms of performance and maintainability. Markets being what they are, web applications are in vogue because they earn big money if done well. (Slack just became the latest poster child for that, right?) I don't see that changing anytime soon either, lest someone is willing to go back to the original drawing board and design a totally new paradigm that integrates the promise of Rich Web Applications in the browser properly. And so, I think it's hyperbole when someone states that "HTML, CSS and JS are broken". One may also consider the history of Web technology over the past decade as a great example of how the popularity of a set of technologies turned them into Maslow's Golden Hammer. Used to solve any and all problems under the sun, but still not any closer to what native applications aspired to achieve back in the 80's, 90's and 00's.

indymike 6y ago
"Even so, it's safe to say that this approach is miles removed from what native applications offer in terms of performance and maintainability. Markets being what they are, web applications are in vogue because they earn big money if done well." Disagree. I really do love the speed of native apps, but there's a very good reason the web has become the way most software is delivered. Web apps cost less to build, distribute and maintain for both publisher and user. Web apps are often, but not always, easier to install (just type a url in the browser, press enter, done), easier to learn, more interactive, and more likely to run on the device you own. Native apps are a load of work for both the publisher and user, and that is just to get the app installed and running. Maybe the current web isn't what was envisioned. I'm ok with that.
- CaptArmchair 6y ago
  Well, you make good points. I don't disagree with you. I'm weary of drawing the discussion towards pitting web apps against native apps in absolute or general terms. I think that would detract things too far from reality. It's a complex debate because the 'right fit' - native or web app - depends on the use case or business case as well as the perspective of the stakeholders involved: developers, business owners, customers and users. The many trade off's each and every stakeholder has to make are what sparks tensions and debate. Speed is just one of those. It's true that web applications have set a new bar as far as customer / user convenience as well as application maintenance are concerned. But then there are also trade off's regarding privacy, confidentiality, security, legal compliance, accountability, trust, expenses,... There's also reliability / availability of a services, and there's even a moral question regarding energy consumption tied to operating data centers. Again, I'm not going to take position on those in absolute terms. Rather, I think it's very much valid to look at your own business case or use cases and keep taking native applications into consideration as well, rather then dismissing them outright as yesteryear's technology. > Maybe the current web isn't what was envisioned. I'm ok with that. Oh, I'm okay with that as well. It's interesting to see you use the phrase "current Web" because what is the "current Web" exactly? In the vast majority of discussions, it tends to be reduced to the well known big tech companies and their products. For many the "current Web" is mainly Reddit, HN, StackOverflow, LinkedIn, Medium,... For others, the "current Web" might be a plethora of self-hosted websites which they have bookmarked in text documents. Your mileage really varies depending on who you ask. The Web is far larger then the perception we get from it through our own daily use. And a vast amount of it will remain dark simply because we either can't find it, or because we aren't aware it exists, or because we simply don't look for it's existence.

indymike 6y ago

"Even so, it's safe to say that this approach is miles removed from what native applications offer in terms of performance and maintainability. Markets being what they are, web applications are in vogue because they earn big money if done well." Disagree. I really do love the speed of native apps, but there's a very good reason the web has become the way most software is delivered. Web apps cost less to build, distribute and maintain for both publisher and user. Web apps are often, but not always, easier to install (just type a url in the browser, press enter, done), easier to learn, more interactive, and more likely to run on the device you own. Native apps are a load of work for both the publisher and user, and that is just to get the app installed and running. Maybe the current web isn't what was envisioned. I'm ok with that.

CaptArmchair 6y ago
Well, you make good points. I don't disagree with you. I'm weary of drawing the discussion towards pitting web apps against native apps in absolute or general terms. I think that would detract things too far from reality. It's a complex debate because the 'right fit' - native or web app - depends on the use case or business case as well as the perspective of the stakeholders involved: developers, business owners, customers and users. The many trade off's each and every stakeholder has to make are what sparks tensions and debate. Speed is just one of those. It's true that web applications have set a new bar as far as customer / user convenience as well as application maintenance are concerned. But then there are also trade off's regarding privacy, confidentiality, security, legal compliance, accountability, trust, expenses,... There's also reliability / availability of a services, and there's even a moral question regarding energy consumption tied to operating data centers. Again, I'm not going to take position on those in absolute terms. Rather, I think it's very much valid to look at your own business case or use cases and keep taking native applications into consideration as well, rather then dismissing them outright as yesteryear's technology. > Maybe the current web isn't what was envisioned. I'm ok with that. Oh, I'm okay with that as well. It's interesting to see you use the phrase "current Web" because what is the "current Web" exactly? In the vast majority of discussions, it tends to be reduced to the well known big tech companies and their products. For many the "current Web" is mainly Reddit, HN, StackOverflow, LinkedIn, Medium,... For others, the "current Web" might be a plethora of self-hosted websites which they have bookmarked in text documents. Your mileage really varies depending on who you ask. The Web is far larger then the perception we get from it through our own daily use. And a vast amount of it will remain dark simply because we either can't find it, or because we aren't aware it exists, or because we simply don't look for it's existence.