10 ms·

What Jeff apparently meant was that all application programming is web programming. Because of this unstated (and absurd) assumption, Jeff's critique fails to

What Jeff apparently meant was that all application programming is web programming. Because of this unstated (and absurd) assumption, Jeff's critique fails to address most of Michael's points - whether you agree with those points or not. By completely ignoring the system-programmer perspective, Jeff actually manages to be more insulting and apparently clueless than Michael was.

drivingmenuts 15y ago
Someone has managed to necro a two-year old argument. What we said two years ago may not be the same as what we say now.
- nathanb 15y ago
  He was making a prediction about the future. A prediction which was provably wrong in 2009 and has become even more wrong today. If there's no accountability--if we don't look back on the things we write about the future and learn from them--we will not grow and will continue making inane predictions.
ceol 15y ago
>Because of this unstated (and absurd) assumption, Jeff's critique fails to address most of Michael's points - whether you agree with those points or not. Michael only had two points: web programming sucks, and web programmers suck. Jeff dismissed the latter in favor of tackling the former, and I think he did rather well. I could see designers— instead of paying $500 for Photoshop— pay $15/mo to use an online editing service that stores and backs up their photos for them (or syncs with Dropbox). I could see programmers paying a monthly fee to use an online IDE that builds and runs their software against an array of OSes and supports GitHub/Bitbucket. Users are already throwing their music to "the cloud" with services like Grooveshark and Pandora. These are the kind of things Jeff was talking about: as the web becomes more popular, and the cost of processing power and storage continues to fall, many things we consider too heavy for the web will start to leak in. At least, that was my take on it.

drivingmenuts 15y ago

Someone has managed to necro a two-year old argument. What we said two years ago may not be the same as what we say now.

nathanb 15y ago
He was making a prediction about the future. A prediction which was provably wrong in 2009 and has become even more wrong today. If there's no accountability--if we don't look back on the things we write about the future and learn from them--we will not grow and will continue making inane predictions.

ceol 15y ago

>Because of this unstated (and absurd) assumption, Jeff's critique fails to address most of Michael's points - whether you agree with those points or not. Michael only had two points: web programming sucks, and web programmers suck. Jeff dismissed the latter in favor of tackling the former, and I think he did rather well. I could see designers— instead of paying $500 for Photoshop— pay $15/mo to use an online editing service that stores and backs up their photos for them (or syncs with Dropbox). I could see programmers paying a monthly fee to use an online IDE that builds and runs their software against an array of OSes and supports GitHub/Bitbucket. Users are already throwing their music to "the cloud" with services like Grooveshark and Pandora. These are the kind of things Jeff was talking about: as the web becomes more popular, and the cost of processing power and storage continues to fall, many things we consider too heavy for the web will start to leak in. At least, that was my take on it.