5 ms·
Yup, it's all about DNS and links. But let's try to look more than a few years out for once? OKAY? You could make a very decent web that is made out of many c
by collint 15y ago
Yup, it's all about DNS and links.
But let's try to look more than a few years out for once? OKAY?
You could make a very decent web that is made out of many clients, that can all link to each other and maybe even all run in separate tabs of the same browser (or whatever 'process' model you want).
But god help you 50 years down the road when you need to download new client browser for every other web page.
This, among other long-term type trade-offs are the very good reasons why the "open web" as it exists on it's current trajectory are a very good idea.
- varikin 15y agoIt seems an extreme that the web will in 50 years will require different browsers for every site. The way I read this is that HTML/CSS/JS could be replaced overtime, bit by bit in 50 years by something else. Flash could have done this, though I think their chance has passed them by. Just like Java Applets and Silverlight. Maybe Chrome will add an interpreter for CoffeeScript and in 10 years all new sites will use that instead of JS. Maybe Firefox will introduce something other than HTML to build a page in that works with CSS and JS better and in 15 years, everything new will be in that language. It isn't that everything will be different, but the implementation of the web is less important than that openness of the web. Fifteeen, twenty years ago, the web was made up of newsgroups, bbs', and email. HTML and browsers were new. Thing have changes, but the web still exists. Something new will come along that will slowly replace what we know as the web. What it is and how it happens is unknown, but I expect it to happen.