6 ms·

That's not a problem of the craft however, it's a problem of the culture. We are perfectly capable of writing native GUIs, and we have powerful tools for it as

That's not a problem of the craft however, it's a problem of the culture. We are perfectly capable of writing native GUIs, and we have powerful tools for it as well. QTDesigner comes to mind as a well known example. The problem is, about 12 years ago, application design went through a gameification and "toy-i-fication" phase, from which it has yet to recover, because suddenly, everything had to look like it was designed for tablets or gaming consoles. Then the "javascript for everythiiiing!" happened, and suddenly the tools and workflows behind all the bloated, inefficient, low-information-density apps were swept into the desktop world. But, since the modern definition of an "App" is basically everything that is displayed on a phone ever, and devices got so powerful that no matter how badly devs f* it up it still kinda-ish works (if we ignore the battery screaming for dear life), and this situation has generally been accepted.

pjmlp 5y ago
The problem is when this culture extends a couple of generations the craft gets lost.
- usrbinbash 5y ago
  Not really, because there is always a high demand for good software. Just because cookware nowadays is usually made from cheap, industrially pressed sheet metal, doesn't mean high-quality copper and cast-iron cookware is no longer made.
jfengel 5y ago
It is a culture problem, but it goes back before phones and Javascript. Even before that, application design was usually terrible. Apps were almost universally ugly. Developers just aren't very good at it; it's not in their skill sets. They're good at making apps fast and small, but not at making them usable. Rare companies would hire separate designers, and the apps could be functional and attractive, but they were the exception. It was a lot of money for something generally considered ancillary. Browser-based apps get to leverage the work done by browser makers, who put in the effort to make toolkits that looked nice by default. They're not small or fast -- though Moore's Law has made them usable anyway. They also favor the things that designers like -- including not overwhelming the user with dense information. You can still use them badly, but by default any programmer can make an app that isn't awful. There never was a golden age when developers made good, small, fast apps. It was usually a "pick two" situation, except by spending a lot of money. I'm just as happy to let my battery scream and not cringe at every single app that comes up, and so cheaply that they can give it away or cost dollars rather than tens or hundreds. Others disagree, of course, but I think the market tends to show a heavy thumb on one side of that scale.
- rowanG077 5y ago
  I disagree. Honestly since UI have become the primary domain of designers and "UX" experts they have regressed massively. 15 years ago you opened an application. The feel was consistent. I had a bar at the top which showed me the option in an straightforward manner which allowed to quickly explore and click through to relatively specialized things. Now, every app has it's own UI. And even worse everything is as hidden as possible in the name of being "clean".
- usrbinbash 5y ago
  >They're good at making apps fast and small, but not at making them usable. I don't know which apps you are talking about, but I use apps built and designed by developers every day, and they all work great. My problems start when Apps are NOT designed by developers, but rather people who have seen 100 videos about color theory, and know all the latest fonts their social media du jour is excited about, but very little about hardware, programming, and the difference between localhost and accessing a server over cheap WiFi from somewhere else on the planet. Because these are the "apps" which do something ridiculously simple, but somehow manage to eat up 2-3GiB of RAM and let the laptops fans spin out of control. >They're not small or fast -- though Moore's Law has made them usable anyway. Moores Law is over however, and there is no justification for an app that, say, plays locally stored mp3s to require 2GiB of RAM and 10% CPU. If an application thinks this is justified, it will get to know my good friend `rm -rf`, beacause I have vlc running in ncurses mode right now, playing my entire playlist, and its eating less memory than the terminal emulator it's running in ;-) The answer to bad software, and overloaded/overused/oversold frameworks is not "built more powerful computers" but "make better software". >There never was a golden age when developers made good, small, fast apps. Good != Beautifully designed. Good means small, fast, portable, reliable, easy to install, easy to learn, easy to remove, does its job.
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  I wonder where the notion that productivity software should be “attractive” came from. Were whole businesses not built on VisiCalc? The registers at B&H photo in NYC appear to be some DOS terminal system, but the employees know the keyboard shortcuts by muscle memory and the interface’s reaction time is instantaneous. If that’s not good software I don’t know what is.

pjmlp 5y ago

The problem is when this culture extends a couple of generations the craft gets lost.

usrbinbash 5y ago
Not really, because there is always a high demand for good software. Just because cookware nowadays is usually made from cheap, industrially pressed sheet metal, doesn't mean high-quality copper and cast-iron cookware is no longer made.

jfengel 5y ago

It is a culture problem, but it goes back before phones and Javascript. Even before that, application design was usually terrible. Apps were almost universally ugly. Developers just aren't very good at it; it's not in their skill sets. They're good at making apps fast and small, but not at making them usable. Rare companies would hire separate designers, and the apps could be functional and attractive, but they were the exception. It was a lot of money for something generally considered ancillary. Browser-based apps get to leverage the work done by browser makers, who put in the effort to make toolkits that looked nice by default. They're not small or fast -- though Moore's Law has made them usable anyway. They also favor the things that designers like -- including not overwhelming the user with dense information. You can still use them badly, but by default any programmer can make an app that isn't awful. There never was a golden age when developers made good, small, fast apps. It was usually a "pick two" situation, except by spending a lot of money. I'm just as happy to let my battery scream and not cringe at every single app that comes up, and so cheaply that they can give it away or cost dollars rather than tens or hundreds. Others disagree, of course, but I think the market tends to show a heavy thumb on one side of that scale.

rowanG077 5y ago
I disagree. Honestly since UI have become the primary domain of designers and "UX" experts they have regressed massively. 15 years ago you opened an application. The feel was consistent. I had a bar at the top which showed me the option in an straightforward manner which allowed to quickly explore and click through to relatively specialized things. Now, every app has it's own UI. And even worse everything is as hidden as possible in the name of being "clean".
usrbinbash 5y ago
>They're good at making apps fast and small, but not at making them usable. I don't know which apps you are talking about, but I use apps built and designed by developers every day, and they all work great. My problems start when Apps are NOT designed by developers, but rather people who have seen 100 videos about color theory, and know all the latest fonts their social media du jour is excited about, but very little about hardware, programming, and the difference between localhost and accessing a server over cheap WiFi from somewhere else on the planet. Because these are the "apps" which do something ridiculously simple, but somehow manage to eat up 2-3GiB of RAM and let the laptops fans spin out of control. >They're not small or fast -- though Moore's Law has made them usable anyway. Moores Law is over however, and there is no justification for an app that, say, plays locally stored mp3s to require 2GiB of RAM and 10% CPU. If an application thinks this is justified, it will get to know my good friend `rm -rf`, beacause I have vlc running in ncurses mode right now, playing my entire playlist, and its eating less memory than the terminal emulator it's running in ;-) The answer to bad software, and overloaded/overused/oversold frameworks is not "built more powerful computers" but "make better software". >There never was a golden age when developers made good, small, fast apps. Good != Beautifully designed. Good means small, fast, portable, reliable, easy to install, easy to learn, easy to remove, does its job.
jazzyjackson 5y ago
I wonder where the notion that productivity software should be “attractive” came from. Were whole businesses not built on VisiCalc? The registers at B&H photo in NYC appear to be some DOS terminal system, but the employees know the keyboard shortcuts by muscle memory and the interface’s reaction time is instantaneous. If that’s not good software I don’t know what is.