5 ms·

Your advice seems targeted at app developers, and for that, maybe it is good advice. (depends on the product, really. Way back in 1996 Hotmail proved that web b

Your advice seems targeted at app developers, and for that, maybe it is good advice. (depends on the product, really. Way back in 1996 Hotmail proved that web based apps could compete with native apps, for email apps anyway) But this discussion is not about what app developers should do today, given the current state of browsers. It is about whether the browser makers should support enhanced capabilities. This is different. If the browser makers did support more, of course, your advice would become even less likely to be good advice, since you could make it "fit those platforms" just as well. I mean, maybe you feel that an email apps that runs on a web page is somehow lesser than one that runs natively. Like, you have to go to a bookmark rather than click an icon, so that is going to feel out of place. I say people have gotten used to that a long time ago. Now it is just a matter of supporting all the things they might expect in the app.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> I mean, maybe you feel that an email apps that runs on a web page is somehow lesser than one that runs natively. I do, and I think this is obvious to anyone who has spent time using both. > Like, you have to go to a bookmark rather than click an icon, so that is going to feel out of place. It's much deeper than that. Native applications using native widgets integrate much better with the way the OS works. You can notice this in the little things like how windows behave, how drag and drop works, notifications, task management, system tray usage, etc. > I say people have gotten used to that a long time ago. I think that's a terrible metric. People have gotten used to having shitty local monopoly ISPs too, it doesn't mean that's the way we should be doing things.
- robbrown451 5y ago
  Maybe you can clarify what kind of app you are speaking of. I'm using Hacker News at the moment, which is a web app. I am typing into a text area, and in a moment, will press the reply button. I'm not feeing this "lack of integration" you speak of. I don't see how this could be improved if it was in a Windows app, and that reply button was coded using the Win32 API as opposed to being made in HTML, styled in CSS, and given interactivity with JavaScript. Oh, you mean some other kind of app? What kind? Which apps should be native and which are ok to be web apps? Even if we restrict the discussion to the desktop (so mac, windows and linux native, vs running in a web browser), do you think that, say, YouTube would be better as a native app vs the web app that I currently use it as? I use the Google's "messages for web" app that allows me to send and receive SMS messages via an app in a web browser. Drag and drop works as expected. And so on. How would it be better if it was a native Windows app? I also use apps like Gimp and Inkscape, which are technically native but are horrible (because they are trying to be cross platform). And I use a native video editing app called ScreenFlow, which works great on a Mac. But now that my main machine is Windows, it is a huge pain in the ass to use because I have to get out my aging Mac and transfer large files to it. I use Visual Studio Code. It is built on web technologies (i.e. electron, but it also can run right in a web browser over the web), and is every bit as slick the competing single-OS native app I recently abandoned for text editing (BBEdit). In every case I am either using apps that are web based (or at least web-browser-engine based), or I am suffering from the downsides of apps that are not.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    > Maybe you can clarify what kind of app you are speaking of. I'm using Hacker News at the moment, which is a web app. I am typing into a text area, and in a moment, will press the reply button. HN is a forum. It uses forms, which the web was more or less originally built for and for which a web browser is a suitable interface. > I'm not feeing this "lack of integration" you speak of. I don't see how this could be improved if it was in a Windows app, and that reply button was coded using the Win32 API as opposed to being made in HTML, styled in CSS, and given interactivity with JavaScript. Browsers used to be simple enough that buttons did use the native toolkit. JavaScript isn't even required for what HN does. My point is that HN is less an "app" than it is a "document" and the web is perfectly suitable for viewing it. The same way you use a native PDF viewer to interact with a PDF. Web apps are like if a bunch of people insisted on treating PDF as an application platform. > Oh, you mean some other kind of app? What kind? CAD software, audio software, art software, modelling software, development environments, office applications, diagnostic tools, emulators, video editors, photo editors, management tools... > I use the Google's "messages for web" app that allows me to send and receive SMS messages via an app in a web browser. Drag and drop works as expected. And so on. How would it be better if it was a native Windows app? It would take up less memory and CPU time, integrate with the system tray and native notification system, be easier to control with windows firewall, could keep a local log, and it would match the look and feel of the rest of the OS, reducing friction. If Microsoft hadn't bone-headedly remove Windows's theming capabilities it could also match your aesthetic preferences with no special effort. > I also use apps like Gimp and Inkscape, which are technically native but are horrible (because they are trying to be cross platform). Kinda my point really: they would be better if they used native interfaces instead of GTK. When I say native, I mean taking advantage of the integration provided by using native widgets and APIs. > And I use a native video editing app called ScreenFlow, which works great on a Mac. But now that my main machine is Windows, it is a huge pain in the ass to use because I have to get out my aging Mac and transfer large files to it. I'm sure storing your videos in the cloud for use with some kind of web-based editor would be completely seamless? > I use Visual Studio Code. It is built on web technologies (i.e. electron, but it also can run right in a web browser over the web), and is every bit as slick the competing single-OS native app I recently abandoned for text editing (BBEdit). > In every case I am either using apps that are web based (or at least web-browser-engine based), or I am suffering from the downsides of apps that are not. Doesn't mean its a good idea.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

> I mean, maybe you feel that an email apps that runs on a web page is somehow lesser than one that runs natively. I do, and I think this is obvious to anyone who has spent time using both. > Like, you have to go to a bookmark rather than click an icon, so that is going to feel out of place. It's much deeper than that. Native applications using native widgets integrate much better with the way the OS works. You can notice this in the little things like how windows behave, how drag and drop works, notifications, task management, system tray usage, etc. > I say people have gotten used to that a long time ago. I think that's a terrible metric. People have gotten used to having shitty local monopoly ISPs too, it doesn't mean that's the way we should be doing things.

robbrown451 5y ago
Maybe you can clarify what kind of app you are speaking of. I'm using Hacker News at the moment, which is a web app. I am typing into a text area, and in a moment, will press the reply button. I'm not feeing this "lack of integration" you speak of. I don't see how this could be improved if it was in a Windows app, and that reply button was coded using the Win32 API as opposed to being made in HTML, styled in CSS, and given interactivity with JavaScript. Oh, you mean some other kind of app? What kind? Which apps should be native and which are ok to be web apps? Even if we restrict the discussion to the desktop (so mac, windows and linux native, vs running in a web browser), do you think that, say, YouTube would be better as a native app vs the web app that I currently use it as? I use the Google's "messages for web" app that allows me to send and receive SMS messages via an app in a web browser. Drag and drop works as expected. And so on. How would it be better if it was a native Windows app? I also use apps like Gimp and Inkscape, which are technically native but are horrible (because they are trying to be cross platform). And I use a native video editing app called ScreenFlow, which works great on a Mac. But now that my main machine is Windows, it is a huge pain in the ass to use because I have to get out my aging Mac and transfer large files to it. I use Visual Studio Code. It is built on web technologies (i.e. electron, but it also can run right in a web browser over the web), and is every bit as slick the competing single-OS native app I recently abandoned for text editing (BBEdit). In every case I am either using apps that are web based (or at least web-browser-engine based), or I am suffering from the downsides of apps that are not.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  > Maybe you can clarify what kind of app you are speaking of. I'm using Hacker News at the moment, which is a web app. I am typing into a text area, and in a moment, will press the reply button. HN is a forum. It uses forms, which the web was more or less originally built for and for which a web browser is a suitable interface. > I'm not feeing this "lack of integration" you speak of. I don't see how this could be improved if it was in a Windows app, and that reply button was coded using the Win32 API as opposed to being made in HTML, styled in CSS, and given interactivity with JavaScript. Browsers used to be simple enough that buttons did use the native toolkit. JavaScript isn't even required for what HN does. My point is that HN is less an "app" than it is a "document" and the web is perfectly suitable for viewing it. The same way you use a native PDF viewer to interact with a PDF. Web apps are like if a bunch of people insisted on treating PDF as an application platform. > Oh, you mean some other kind of app? What kind? CAD software, audio software, art software, modelling software, development environments, office applications, diagnostic tools, emulators, video editors, photo editors, management tools... > I use the Google's "messages for web" app that allows me to send and receive SMS messages via an app in a web browser. Drag and drop works as expected. And so on. How would it be better if it was a native Windows app? It would take up less memory and CPU time, integrate with the system tray and native notification system, be easier to control with windows firewall, could keep a local log, and it would match the look and feel of the rest of the OS, reducing friction. If Microsoft hadn't bone-headedly remove Windows's theming capabilities it could also match your aesthetic preferences with no special effort. > I also use apps like Gimp and Inkscape, which are technically native but are horrible (because they are trying to be cross platform). Kinda my point really: they would be better if they used native interfaces instead of GTK. When I say native, I mean taking advantage of the integration provided by using native widgets and APIs. > And I use a native video editing app called ScreenFlow, which works great on a Mac. But now that my main machine is Windows, it is a huge pain in the ass to use because I have to get out my aging Mac and transfer large files to it. I'm sure storing your videos in the cloud for use with some kind of web-based editor would be completely seamless? > I use Visual Studio Code. It is built on web technologies (i.e. electron, but it also can run right in a web browser over the web), and is every bit as slick the competing single-OS native app I recently abandoned for text editing (BBEdit). > In every case I am either using apps that are web based (or at least web-browser-engine based), or I am suffering from the downsides of apps that are not. Doesn't mean its a good idea.