3 ms·

Heh, looks like a really nice GUI. See the video of the founder using it: http://blog.virtub.com/?p=15 http://blog.virtub.com/?p=15 Seems to me the difference

by benhoyt 19y ago

Heh, looks like a really nice GUI. See the video of the founder using it: http://blog.virtub.com/?p=15 http://blog.virtub.com/?p=15 Seems to me the difference between "web app" and "desktop app" is getting more and more fuzzy. Is it a web app because it's written in Flash? Is it a web app because it (presumably) doesn't store anything on your machine? Given that desktop apps these days often interact heavily with data from the web (Google Earth, for instance), what exactly is the definition of "web app" now?

mxh 19y ago
My definitions: Web App: Application developed entirely using open standards, which (aims to) run in any browser, requiring no additional vendor plugins. Desktop App: Application designed to launch from the user's desktop, without reference to a web browser. Thick Client: Any desktop app that makes heavy use of the Internet, or any "Web App"-like thing that makes use of non-standard extensions to the browser. Reasonable people may disagree on this, and the differences are pretty fuzzy, but my distinctions are based upon the development problems I feel each type of approach must address. Web App: Works on (most any) platform, no installation, but you have to deal with cross-browser issues, and you're limited by the technology of the web (no local FS access, for instance.) Desktop App: Tied to one architecture (or worry about JVM incompatibilities), installation hassles, but you get an incredibly rich set of capabilities. Thick Client: If it's a desktop app that talks to the network, you've got all the desktop tradeoffs, plus richer data, plus worries about what happens when the user works offline. If it's a "Web App" using non-standard extensions (Flash, Silverlight) you've got to worry about whether the user has the right version installed, and licensing hassles and/or fees on the server side and/or in the toolchain. You're also constrained by the capabilities of the extensions, but, in practice, development seems easier than for a pure Web App. I realize that these definitions mean that lots of things (YouTube) people think of as Web Apps aren't (to me, anyway), but I'm okay with that. It seems a crucial distinction that, once you're targeting the Flash client, you're not really solving the same set of (technical) problems as someone targeting a browser.

by benhoyt 19y ago

mxh 19y ago

My definitions: Web App: Application developed entirely using open standards, which (aims to) run in any browser, requiring no additional vendor plugins. Desktop App: Application designed to launch from the user's desktop, without reference to a web browser. Thick Client: Any desktop app that makes heavy use of the Internet, or any "Web App"-like thing that makes use of non-standard extensions to the browser. Reasonable people may disagree on this, and the differences are pretty fuzzy, but my distinctions are based upon the development problems I feel each type of approach must address. Web App: Works on (most any) platform, no installation, but you have to deal with cross-browser issues, and you're limited by the technology of the web (no local FS access, for instance.) Desktop App: Tied to one architecture (or worry about JVM incompatibilities), installation hassles, but you get an incredibly rich set of capabilities. Thick Client: If it's a desktop app that talks to the network, you've got all the desktop tradeoffs, plus richer data, plus worries about what happens when the user works offline. If it's a "Web App" using non-standard extensions (Flash, Silverlight) you've got to worry about whether the user has the right version installed, and licensing hassles and/or fees on the server side and/or in the toolchain. You're also constrained by the capabilities of the extensions, but, in practice, development seems easier than for a pure Web App. I realize that these definitions mean that lots of things (YouTube) people think of as Web Apps aren't (to me, anyway), but I'm okay with that. It seems a crucial distinction that, once you're targeting the Flash client, you're not really solving the same set of (technical) problems as someone targeting a browser.