5 ms·

I agree with you that a lot of software needs open ended development, but I don't believe most of it does. I like the philosophy used in the development of the

I agree with you that a lot of software needs open ended development, but I don't believe most of it does. I like the philosophy used in the development of the Gemini protocol: software should have a clearly defined scope, it should break not bend and it should eventually be done. I think the vast majority of software doesn't actually need continuous updates. Look at the downsides, web browsers in particular are the biggest example of the downsides to this approach. They've become megalithic blobs of unmaintainable bloat. If they'd just stuck to delivering documents and let "web app" developers develop standalone clients we wouldn't be in the situation we are in with the web. Some software can never be done, but most of it should be done.

jaywalk 5y ago
If web browsers had stuck to just delivering documents, the Internet wouldn't have become what it is today. We'd end up with a bunch of AOL-like walled gardens, which benefits nobody. Your "get off my lawn" ideal for web browsers would have never worked.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  That's just ridiculous. It's not a dichotomy between news sites running megabytes of software on your machine and proprietary walled garden networks. There was a near decade long golden age where people used protocols and clients, browsers delivered documents and everyone used the same global network, and you're conveniently just ignoring that to make your invalid point. Do you like what the web is today? I know almost nobody that does. "We wouldn't have the web we have today" isn't a selling point.
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    I have many issues with what the web is today, but removing all interactive features from web browsers would be a very negative change in my opinion.
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      Why? Think about this scenario. You boot your machine, and it boots to a beautiful environment, with all the software you need to do the things you want to do. But most of it is useless because you have to start this other piece of software that's a blank rectangle, and in that software you must type the name of the application you want to run, and it will fetch the application over the network and render it. This blank rectangle must constantly be updated with new features in order to continue fetching software to run over the network properly. Whole teams need to be employed by non profits to keep this blank rectangle up to date. An operating system inside of an operating system. You don't think this is senseless? Now imagine this scenario: you click a link to a video, the stream opens in VLC. You click subscribe, the link opens in thunderbird. If a company wants to have some interactive service they have to give you a client, they can't just externalize that workload on a browser maintainer. Isn't that the web we wanted?
      - BrightGlow 5y ago
        That's not a problem on platforms like ChromeOS where web apps are treated like standard apps, from the user point of view they're indistinguishable. A solution on other operating systems would be to use Electron, but I've seen many people on here also cry foul about that.
        betwixthewires 5y ago
        Electron is an even worse aspect of what I described, I thought about adding a line about it but decided to stay on point. You create an entire system designed for web apps, then you create basically a site specific browser to render just one web app because users need a dedicated client. It's another step in the senseless direction.
        BrightGlow 5y ago
        What is senseless about that? It's common for apps to bundle their dependencies, with Electron the bundle just happens to be a app platform for HTML, CSS and Javascript that we colloquially call a web browser. I'm not really a fan of Electron myself but some of the hatred it seems to get on this website is pretty irrational and unreasonable, in my opinion.
- LocalH 5y ago
  "The Internet today" friggin' blows. Get off my lawn indeed, lol

jaywalk 5y ago

If web browsers had stuck to just delivering documents, the Internet wouldn't have become what it is today. We'd end up with a bunch of AOL-like walled gardens, which benefits nobody. Your "get off my lawn" ideal for web browsers would have never worked.

betwixthewires 5y ago
That's just ridiculous. It's not a dichotomy between news sites running megabytes of software on your machine and proprietary walled garden networks. There was a near decade long golden age where people used protocols and clients, browsers delivered documents and everyone used the same global network, and you're conveniently just ignoring that to make your invalid point. Do you like what the web is today? I know almost nobody that does. "We wouldn't have the web we have today" isn't a selling point.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  I have many issues with what the web is today, but removing all interactive features from web browsers would be a very negative change in my opinion.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    Why? Think about this scenario. You boot your machine, and it boots to a beautiful environment, with all the software you need to do the things you want to do. But most of it is useless because you have to start this other piece of software that's a blank rectangle, and in that software you must type the name of the application you want to run, and it will fetch the application over the network and render it. This blank rectangle must constantly be updated with new features in order to continue fetching software to run over the network properly. Whole teams need to be employed by non profits to keep this blank rectangle up to date. An operating system inside of an operating system. You don't think this is senseless? Now imagine this scenario: you click a link to a video, the stream opens in VLC. You click subscribe, the link opens in thunderbird. If a company wants to have some interactive service they have to give you a client, they can't just externalize that workload on a browser maintainer. Isn't that the web we wanted?
    - BrightGlow 5y ago
      That's not a problem on platforms like ChromeOS where web apps are treated like standard apps, from the user point of view they're indistinguishable. A solution on other operating systems would be to use Electron, but I've seen many people on here also cry foul about that.
      - betwixthewires 5y ago
        Electron is an even worse aspect of what I described, I thought about adding a line about it but decided to stay on point. You create an entire system designed for web apps, then you create basically a site specific browser to render just one web app because users need a dedicated client. It's another step in the senseless direction.
        BrightGlow 5y ago
        What is senseless about that? It's common for apps to bundle their dependencies, with Electron the bundle just happens to be a app platform for HTML, CSS and Javascript that we colloquially call a web browser. I'm not really a fan of Electron myself but some of the hatred it seems to get on this website is pretty irrational and unreasonable, in my opinion.
LocalH 5y ago
"The Internet today" friggin' blows. Get off my lawn indeed, lol