4 ms·

Well then by that definition, Google chrome is still not the first "Browser 2.0" because other development teams have included technologies like Javascript and

by froo 18y ago

Well then by that definition, Google chrome is still not the first "Browser 2.0" because other development teams have included technologies like Javascript and especially ActiveX controls into their browsers, effectively making them application platforms. I just would like to reiterate that I'm not a Google hater, nor do I think Google Chrome will fail. I think it's a great addition to the web. I just don't like all this inane hype that's going around and believe me, tech enthusiasts are about as bad as teenage girls when it comes to gossiping and echo chambers. Remember when Plurk was the Twitter killer because of Twitter always being down? I think we're still waiting on that one. EDIT - (fixing 5am grammar errors, I'm sure I missed some)

johns 18y ago
I used the word "designed" intentionally. The 1.0s were not designed for web apps. They work, but that wasn't their intent. This is the first browser conceived for the purpose of running apps. It just happens to be backwards compatible.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- froo 18y ago
  I'm sorry but I can't drink the kool aid on that one, because it sounds like your implying that other software implementations by other developers before Google didn't "design" their software - which would be a complete fallacy. Don't get me wrong, the multiple processing is fantastic, faster javascript is great, along with all the other toys that Google have in their browser. However, all this means is Google does it better than anyone else hands down and that it's going to do fantastic things to further the web. It will push other developers to be better, kind of like how iphone pushed other phone manufacturers to be better... but in both cases that is more or less an advantage of being late to market. Anyway, the point is that I think you might have swallowed the hype a little bit too much in believing that Google is the first generation of browsers that was "designed" for web apps because it was designed to run them better than the many generations before it. That would be like saying Chuck Yeager was the first man to do powered flight because he broke the sound barrier first. The Wright brothers would not be amused.

by froo 18y ago

johns 18y ago

I used the word "designed" intentionally. The 1.0s were not designed for web apps. They work, but that wasn't their intent. This is the first browser conceived for the purpose of running apps. It just happens to be backwards compatible.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
froo 18y ago
I'm sorry but I can't drink the kool aid on that one, because it sounds like your implying that other software implementations by other developers before Google didn't "design" their software - which would be a complete fallacy. Don't get me wrong, the multiple processing is fantastic, faster javascript is great, along with all the other toys that Google have in their browser. However, all this means is Google does it better than anyone else hands down and that it's going to do fantastic things to further the web. It will push other developers to be better, kind of like how iphone pushed other phone manufacturers to be better... but in both cases that is more or less an advantage of being late to market. Anyway, the point is that I think you might have swallowed the hype a little bit too much in believing that Google is the first generation of browsers that was "designed" for web apps because it was designed to run them better than the many generations before it. That would be like saying Chuck Yeager was the first man to do powered flight because he broke the sound barrier first. The Wright brothers would not be amused.