3 ms·

A response to Joe Hewitt's "Web Technologies need an Owner"

DanielRibeiro 15y ago
Great article by Cappuccino creator and 280 North founder, Tolmasky. Some relevant links: HN Discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3024342 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3024342 The article: http://joehewitt.com/post/web-technologies-need-an-owner/ http://joehewitt.com/post/web-technologies-need-an-owner/ The original Post on TC: http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/30/joe-hewitt-web-development/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/30/joe-hewitt-web-development/
rbranson 15y ago
Suffers the same problem: long on words, very short on evidence. It's theology.
- tolmasky 15y ago
  Care to elaborate? I feel that I went out of my way to provide a number of pertinent examples. I pointed to the trend of traditional web properties moving to native apps when it came to mobile. Things like nytimes, economist, and even Facebook. I discussed how most new social networks on mobile that have gained any traction or attention (such as FourSquare and Path) were largely a native phenomenon (even Google+ chose to have a native iPhone app). I talked about very real examples of how Flash was important in the development of the web. I believe that there are a lot of valid counterpoints to my argument, and I'm actually really interested in hearing and thinking about them. However, I don't think hand-waiving it away as "theology" is one of them.
- kr589213 15y ago
  I disagree. How do you provide evidence of something that doesn't yet exist? The tech industry thrives on innovation and change.
- dr_rezzy 15y ago
  I thought this was very well written and clear. These authors bring up a very valid point. Not really sure if the web can reinvent itself. Java applets and Flash both failed along the same lines. Maybe the web (and HTTP) is only good for relaying information and rich experiences will always be native. It doesn't have to be that way, it just is.

Great article by Cappuccino creator and 280 North founder, Tolmasky. Some relevant links: HN Discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3024342 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3024342 The article: http://joehewitt.com/post/web-technologies-need-an-owner/ http://joehewitt.com/post/web-technologies-need-an-owner/ The original Post on TC: http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/30/joe-hewitt-web-development/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/30/joe-hewitt-web-development/

rbranson 15y ago

Suffers the same problem: long on words, very short on evidence. It's theology.

tolmasky 15y ago
Care to elaborate? I feel that I went out of my way to provide a number of pertinent examples. I pointed to the trend of traditional web properties moving to native apps when it came to mobile. Things like nytimes, economist, and even Facebook. I discussed how most new social networks on mobile that have gained any traction or attention (such as FourSquare and Path) were largely a native phenomenon (even Google+ chose to have a native iPhone app). I talked about very real examples of how Flash was important in the development of the web. I believe that there are a lot of valid counterpoints to my argument, and I'm actually really interested in hearing and thinking about them. However, I don't think hand-waiving it away as "theology" is one of them.
kr589213 15y ago
I disagree. How do you provide evidence of something that doesn't yet exist? The tech industry thrives on innovation and change.
dr_rezzy 15y ago
I thought this was very well written and clear. These authors bring up a very valid point. Not really sure if the web can reinvent itself. Java applets and Flash both failed along the same lines. Maybe the web (and HTTP) is only good for relaying information and rich experiences will always be native. It doesn't have to be that way, it just is.