3 ms·

Blame web developers. There's no money in making web pages simple enough to be delivered to the client as fully functional hypertext without running arbitrary c

Blame web developers. There's no money in making web pages simple enough to be delivered to the client as fully functional hypertext without running arbitrary code. All the money is in stalking users across the app, forcing them to watch ads and navigate paywalls, and denying service to any ad blocker they feel like "for their survival" (and also some other reasons).

afavour 4y ago
Oh, come on. Don't pretend like there are zero web apps with useful functionality. Or would you prefer Google Maps shut down and we all go back to Yahoo Maps where we click an arrow button that reloads the entire page with a new map tile displayed?
- tjoff 4y ago
  Oh yes. Not the slightest hyperbole. That would be amazing. What we have now really is a tragedy of the commons situation. edit: Google maps (or equivalent) is a true game-changer that has a lot of value and one of the very few websites with actual value from javascript. But, we could just use Google Earth as a separate application for it. Just as we did in the early days when google maps on the web was a poor fit. Very small price to pay.
  - afavour 4y ago
    But Google Earth was a terrible app with inconsistent UI! To my mind it’s one of the posterchildren of why making crossplatform native apps often ends up a total mess. I feel like when everyone says “this should be a native app” their imagined app is absolutely flawless and integrates seamlessly on every OS. But reality has rarely matched that ideal.
    - tjoff 4y ago
      It was still orders of magnitude better than the web version so not sure what the argument is? Today I'd use applications such as Slack and Spotify as posterchilds for bad applications. That they are built with web tech is not a coincidence.
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    Let’s take Google Docs as an example. A word processor where you can collaboratively edit a file with someone simply by sharing a link, without requiring anyone to install an application. How do you do this without the web and JavaScript?
    - tjoff 4y ago
      You don't. And that is not a problem worth sacrificing the web for.
      - jakelazaroff 4y ago
        That experience is one of the most empowering things we’ve ever invented. To me, “sacrificing the web” would be giving that up for your vision of purity.
        tjoff 4y ago
        Is it that cumbersome to install an application?
        jakelazaroff 4y ago
        Compared to just clicking a link and immediately having it working, yes. Installing software also has much bigger security implications than just visiting a website. And that’s if the application even works on my OS!
        tjoff 4y ago
        Not having to install something does not even start to be "the most empowering thing we've ever invented" in my book.
modeless 4y ago
This is a total non sequitur in the context of the question implied by the top level comment, which is about why native app platforms haven't fixed some crucial issues that the web solved a long time ago.

afavour 4y ago

Oh, come on. Don't pretend like there are zero web apps with useful functionality. Or would you prefer Google Maps shut down and we all go back to Yahoo Maps where we click an arrow button that reloads the entire page with a new map tile displayed?

tjoff 4y ago
Oh yes. Not the slightest hyperbole. That would be amazing. What we have now really is a tragedy of the commons situation. edit: Google maps (or equivalent) is a true game-changer that has a lot of value and one of the very few websites with actual value from javascript. But, we could just use Google Earth as a separate application for it. Just as we did in the early days when google maps on the web was a poor fit. Very small price to pay.
- afavour 4y ago
  But Google Earth was a terrible app with inconsistent UI! To my mind it’s one of the posterchildren of why making crossplatform native apps often ends up a total mess. I feel like when everyone says “this should be a native app” their imagined app is absolutely flawless and integrates seamlessly on every OS. But reality has rarely matched that ideal.
  - tjoff 4y ago
    It was still orders of magnitude better than the web version so not sure what the argument is? Today I'd use applications such as Slack and Spotify as posterchilds for bad applications. That they are built with web tech is not a coincidence.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  Let’s take Google Docs as an example. A word processor where you can collaboratively edit a file with someone simply by sharing a link, without requiring anyone to install an application. How do you do this without the web and JavaScript?
  - tjoff 4y ago
    You don't. And that is not a problem worth sacrificing the web for.
    - jakelazaroff 4y ago
      That experience is one of the most empowering things we’ve ever invented. To me, “sacrificing the web” would be giving that up for your vision of purity.
      - tjoff 4y ago
        Is it that cumbersome to install an application?
        jakelazaroff 4y ago
        Compared to just clicking a link and immediately having it working, yes. Installing software also has much bigger security implications than just visiting a website. And that’s if the application even works on my OS!
        tjoff 4y ago
        Not having to install something does not even start to be "the most empowering thing we've ever invented" in my book.

modeless 4y ago

This is a total non sequitur in the context of the question implied by the top level comment, which is about why native app platforms haven't fixed some crucial issues that the web solved a long time ago.