2 ms·
What especially doesn't exist is Web "3.0". What's next, 3.1 LTS? 3.2.4 beta2? I wish people would stop abusing semantic versioning and tacking on a ".0" just b
by dheera 5y ago
What especially doesn't exist is Web "3.0". What's next, 3.1 LTS? 3.2.4 beta2? I wish people would stop abusing semantic versioning and tacking on a ".0" just because it looks funky cool to businessy types.
- justinator 5y agoI'm old enough to remember Web 2.0 just meant AJAX/XMLHTTPRequest.
- kmonsen 5y agoThat was really slick when it first arrived!
- dheera 5y agoI had XMLHTTPRequest functionality before they even released it by exploiting a MSIE bug. I didn't tell them about it, since I could also read files on users' hard drives, and I didn't want them to remove the feature (bug), but it did enable the future of the web on my tiny little websites before people even started talking about XMLHTTPRequest.
- chrisco255 5y agoThere is no central web repo following semantic versioning. It's not a coding term. It's a useful abstraction for distinguishing the web as it exists today vs. the web we're trying to build.
- dheera 5y agoIt's not even a web that's being built. Even Ethereum relies on TCP and UDP ports which are Web 1 as far as I care. Invent some new "XYP" or whatever that isn't TCP or UDP and you can call it Web 2, maybe.
- chrisco255 5y agoYou don't have to overthink it. Web 2.0 wasn't a real thing either. It was generally marked by the expansion of real-time interactive applications on the web that didn't need to refresh for state updates. It's just an abstraction, not a technical term. Think of it as the third generation of web applications.
- dheera 5y agoSo people should stop putting ".0" at the end of it, at least. If ".1" doesn't make sense, ".0" doesn't either. It's like if I said Rush Hour 2.0. It makes no sense.