3 ms·

If desktops could make a platform where I can write my app in one language, host it on my own server and get global distribution running in a sandboxed environm

If desktops could make a platform where I can write my app in one language, host it on my own server and get global distribution running in a sandboxed environment then I'd consider it. The web distribution model is just so much nicer for users and devs. No app stores, no install/uninstall process, no access to system internals. I can deploy an app today and just send a link to my friends for them to use it. It takes a day just to put together an app store submission with all the necessary screenshots and configuration, not to mention the lengthy review process which could then deny me permission to launch. The difficulty and uncertainty means that many MVPs launch web first where there's less risk, and more reach, for the same amount of effort. Only after a successful web launch are native apps developed. Sure there are exceptions if the app requires features not yet available on the web (persistence, actually good multithreading, low level access) but the feature gap is closing slowly.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> If desktops could make a platform where I can write my app in one language, host it on my own server and get global distribution running in a sandboxed environment then I'd consider it. It was called Java and ironically people hated it because it was sluggish and didn't use native widgets. Now we have webapps which reinvent the GUI on almost every site and have built in 100ms+ latencies. Go figure. > The web distribution model is just so much nicer for users and devs. No app stores, no install/uninstall process, no access to system internals. No ability to use it at all in an area with shitty network, no consistency, no integration, no respect for OS themes, no ability to continue using old versions if something is wrong with the new one... > I can deploy an app today and just send a link to my friends for them to use it. It takes a day just to put together an app store submission with all the necessary screenshots and configuration, not to mention the lengthy review process which could then deny me permission to launch. On Windows you could put your binary and libraries in a zip file and distribute to users in any variety of ways, including via web hosting. Macs could do the same thing with Application Bundles or their single-file applications before that.
- anhanhanh 5y ago
  > On Windows you could put your binary and libraries in a zip file and distribute to users in any variety of ways, including via web hosting. Would you really do that though? Or would you run a random exe from a random zip hosted from a random website?
  - citrin_ru 5y ago
    If you trust a developer - why not? And if not then an app store model is not a panacea - there are examples of pushing fraudulent/malicious app into them. Better sandboxing would be welcome, but it coming to desktop slowly (and it typically can only limit damage from a malicious app, but not prevent it fully). Web-apps come with own security trade-off: infrastructure can have poor security and data can be leaked (and or destroyed) by hackers, a government can request all you data without you knowing about this, your data can be abused by an web-app creator e. g. sold to an Ad targeting company.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    Literally all the time. Don't get me wrong, I'd much prefer if Windows had implemented proper application sandboxing.
- BackBlast 5y ago
  You have a lot of gripes. > It was called Java and ironically people hated it because it was sluggish and didn't use native widgets. First, Java is in use on plenty of systems. It has all but disappeared as a serious client side system - but not because of performance. Java failed more because it failed to meet market expectations, especially in ease of use. Other solutions were more agile in creating better platforms on the client side. > Now we have webapps which reinvent the GUI on almost every site This is not an impediment to adoption. This is clearly seen on such successful historical software like winamp which intentionally abandoned fitting the mold. X has not historically had much consistency at all for GUI. Xlib, Motive, GTK, Qt/KDE, at any given time there has been many options to pick from. You do lose system-consistency, and that can be a negative. However, you gain platform consistency in your application appearing the same on pretty much every device. It's not a total negative. > and have built in 100ms+ latencies. Go figure. Webapps do not need to hit the backend for every little thing. That latency requirement really depends on how much data is appropriate to send to the client and the development philosophy of the developer. For personally owned data it can certainly live on the client and have a replication stream to the cloud system and have no built-in network latency. This is not a hard requirement for a webapp. > No ability to use it at all in an area with shitty network, no consistency, no integration, no respect for OS themes, no ability to continue using old versions if something is wrong with the new one... Webapps (PWAs, electron, cordova, and websites for that matter) can all work offline if they are designed that way. Just like native software can be built to require the mothership to do anything and behave just like a traditional website. This issue is more mindset than fundamental to the technology. You hit the OS integration side pretty hard. The software solves a problem, its success depends on that. All this integration is simply a list of "nice to haves". The market has shown time and time again that spending too much on your hobby features rather than what the customer's actually want is not a long term winning devopment strategy. Look at it from the user side. If some slightly slower, loud looking software solves my problem 200% better than my current native solution - I'm switching.
Chris2048 5y ago
> No app stores, no install/uninstall process, no access to system internals the problem with app-stores is lock-in, but there's nothing wrong with repos in general e.g. linux package repositories. What we really are missing is good sandboxes. We got there in browser/js-land, but it was hard progress; the constant attacks on web architecture and the value in overcoming it for e.g. online banking and purchase incentivised the effort to provide a solution. If we had properly isolated executions environments, with whatever permissions model that implies, then that could be the basis of proper remote/auth-less execution; but even VMs/containers can't meet that guarantee. Then we wouldn't need so much review process around app, or locked-down stores; installs could be pre-emptive and automatic, and system calls managed. I suppose than rather make just a single one-off language, it would make more sense as a abstract/virtual-machine on which bytecode is executed, as the basis for other, proper language (ala the JVM).
sally1620 5y ago
A lot of players entered this space and some are actually profitable companies, but are none are as popular as Electron. aside from Javascript and WebAPIs, Electron is also free as in free beer. Qt: is truly cross-platform, supporting Mac, Windows, Android, iOS, and even LG TV webOS. VLC uses Qt and is rock solid on all platforms it runs. It is very expensive for commercial development. Xamarin: run on all major operating systems, and mobile, they were profitable. C# is much better language that C++ or Javascript. They became free to use once Microsoft acquired them

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

> If desktops could make a platform where I can write my app in one language, host it on my own server and get global distribution running in a sandboxed environment then I'd consider it. It was called Java and ironically people hated it because it was sluggish and didn't use native widgets. Now we have webapps which reinvent the GUI on almost every site and have built in 100ms+ latencies. Go figure. > The web distribution model is just so much nicer for users and devs. No app stores, no install/uninstall process, no access to system internals. No ability to use it at all in an area with shitty network, no consistency, no integration, no respect for OS themes, no ability to continue using old versions if something is wrong with the new one... > I can deploy an app today and just send a link to my friends for them to use it. It takes a day just to put together an app store submission with all the necessary screenshots and configuration, not to mention the lengthy review process which could then deny me permission to launch. On Windows you could put your binary and libraries in a zip file and distribute to users in any variety of ways, including via web hosting. Macs could do the same thing with Application Bundles or their single-file applications before that.

anhanhanh 5y ago
> On Windows you could put your binary and libraries in a zip file and distribute to users in any variety of ways, including via web hosting. Would you really do that though? Or would you run a random exe from a random zip hosted from a random website?
- citrin_ru 5y ago
  If you trust a developer - why not? And if not then an app store model is not a panacea - there are examples of pushing fraudulent/malicious app into them. Better sandboxing would be welcome, but it coming to desktop slowly (and it typically can only limit damage from a malicious app, but not prevent it fully). Web-apps come with own security trade-off: infrastructure can have poor security and data can be leaked (and or destroyed) by hackers, a government can request all you data without you knowing about this, your data can be abused by an web-app creator e. g. sold to an Ad targeting company.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Literally all the time. Don't get me wrong, I'd much prefer if Windows had implemented proper application sandboxing.
BackBlast 5y ago
You have a lot of gripes. > It was called Java and ironically people hated it because it was sluggish and didn't use native widgets. First, Java is in use on plenty of systems. It has all but disappeared as a serious client side system - but not because of performance. Java failed more because it failed to meet market expectations, especially in ease of use. Other solutions were more agile in creating better platforms on the client side. > Now we have webapps which reinvent the GUI on almost every site This is not an impediment to adoption. This is clearly seen on such successful historical software like winamp which intentionally abandoned fitting the mold. X has not historically had much consistency at all for GUI. Xlib, Motive, GTK, Qt/KDE, at any given time there has been many options to pick from. You do lose system-consistency, and that can be a negative. However, you gain platform consistency in your application appearing the same on pretty much every device. It's not a total negative. > and have built in 100ms+ latencies. Go figure. Webapps do not need to hit the backend for every little thing. That latency requirement really depends on how much data is appropriate to send to the client and the development philosophy of the developer. For personally owned data it can certainly live on the client and have a replication stream to the cloud system and have no built-in network latency. This is not a hard requirement for a webapp. > No ability to use it at all in an area with shitty network, no consistency, no integration, no respect for OS themes, no ability to continue using old versions if something is wrong with the new one... Webapps (PWAs, electron, cordova, and websites for that matter) can all work offline if they are designed that way. Just like native software can be built to require the mothership to do anything and behave just like a traditional website. This issue is more mindset than fundamental to the technology. You hit the OS integration side pretty hard. The software solves a problem, its success depends on that. All this integration is simply a list of "nice to haves". The market has shown time and time again that spending too much on your hobby features rather than what the customer's actually want is not a long term winning devopment strategy. Look at it from the user side. If some slightly slower, loud looking software solves my problem 200% better than my current native solution - I'm switching.

Chris2048 5y ago

> No app stores, no install/uninstall process, no access to system internals the problem with app-stores is lock-in, but there's nothing wrong with repos in general e.g. linux package repositories. What we really are missing is good sandboxes. We got there in browser/js-land, but it was hard progress; the constant attacks on web architecture and the value in overcoming it for e.g. online banking and purchase incentivised the effort to provide a solution. If we had properly isolated executions environments, with whatever permissions model that implies, then that could be the basis of proper remote/auth-less execution; but even VMs/containers can't meet that guarantee. Then we wouldn't need so much review process around app, or locked-down stores; installs could be pre-emptive and automatic, and system calls managed. I suppose than rather make just a single one-off language, it would make more sense as a abstract/virtual-machine on which bytecode is executed, as the basis for other, proper language (ala the JVM).

sally1620 5y ago

A lot of players entered this space and some are actually profitable companies, but are none are as popular as Electron. aside from Javascript and WebAPIs, Electron is also free as in free beer. Qt: is truly cross-platform, supporting Mac, Windows, Android, iOS, and even LG TV webOS. VLC uses Qt and is rock solid on all platforms it runs. It is very expensive for commercial development. Xamarin: run on all major operating systems, and mobile, they were profitable. C# is much better language that C++ or Javascript. They became free to use once Microsoft acquired them