6 ms·

We've been using this approach for a long time in a B2B setting. The fallback to a file picker is really elegant for our use cases wherein some users operate on

We've been using this approach for a long time in a B2B setting. The fallback to a file picker is really elegant for our use cases wherein some users operate on an old-school desktop PC rather than a mobile device. The state of the modern web is pretty incredible now. There really isn't any kind of application that I would feel uncomfortable building this way in 2022. For me, native has evolved into pure overhead (unless you need to light up some shiny device-specific feature that will inevitably become deprecated within 2-3 years). I also understand those who believe their product's main selling point is that it exists as an offering in the various app stores. For us, we actually have a value proposition beyond "it has a native app icon". If I had to attribute my confidence in the web to any one specific aspect, it would have to be CSS grid by a very wide margin. Realizing that I could achieve the exact layout I want on any range of viewport without having to pull down a 3rd party dependency was a huge step for me.

quintussss 4y ago
This mindset is exactly why we all have to suffer with slugish electron apps and bloated websites instead of using fast, native apps written in something like Qt.
- moring 4y ago
  The actual reason is that nobody (probably not even you) wants to pay the substantially higher price of developing native apps, nor do they want the suffer the loads of crash bugs that inevitably come with using lower-level technology. The mindset of developers is what it is because the requirements demand so.
  - account42 4y ago
    Oh please, "loads of crash bugs" are not and were never inevitable. And for the user experience, an exception that prevents you from doing what you want is not even that much better than a hard crash. And let's not pretent that users are ever given a choice in the quality vs. cost tradeoff except for looking for a different program entirely. And even that is often not an option because the software needs to interact with systems that are actively hostile towards third-party clients. We shouldn't excuse mediocre software just because the market puts up with mediocrity.
    - moring 4y ago
      > We shouldn't excuse mediocre software just because the market puts up with mediocrity. The market has stopped putting up with mediocre software and chose higher-quality alternatives. The one thing that is not obvious to developers is that the market considers faster software with less features, hard crashes and limited portability as much worse than the web-based alternatives.
      - claytongulick 4y ago
        The market also likes software that ships faster. With html + js, we're able to deliver a great user experience in a fraction of the time. Also, the desktop bundlers are getting better over time.
      - dataangel 4y ago
        I think this is the wrong take away. The market made a few specific decisions: 1) Users don't want to deal with installation. 2) New developers are attracted towards the least steep difficulty incline -- learn HTML first, then some CSS, then some JS. At each stage you can do something visible and useful, and the next step is within your grasp. 3) Most investment goes towards companies adding value to the web, and companies that do that will tend to use web technologies first. I think crashes have very little do with it. In my experience web apps have just as many stability problems and broken features. Also important that #2 means that developers that can work on systems where web solutions can't work (things that really need C++ because of realtime requirements) are paid a substantial premium. So the market has also decided the people who can do native well are more valuable.
        moring 4y ago
        > 1) Users don't want to deal with installation. That is definitely one of the top selling points for web-based solutions, agreed. > 2) ... At each stage you can do something visible and useful BTW is this still true in 2022? My totally out-of-nothing guess would be that SAAS offerings and website builders have made people with HTML + minimal JS knowledge next to useless. > 3) Most investment goes towards companies adding value to the web, and companies that do that will tend to use web technologies first. OTOH, I have been involved in a project where the web was found to be superior to the alternatives. It does have to do a lot with (no) installation, though. A related project, OTOH, is moving their UI from Swing to the Browser. While this is just the UI, the remaining code was written in Java, not native. I think I do agree with the claims as long as Java/C#/similar get added to the "native" side of the argument, because I really see them eating C/C++'s lunch, and this is only going to accelerate with Java becoming more and more independent of a separate JVM installation. > Also important that #2 means that developers that can work on systems where web solutions can't work (things that really need C++ because of realtime requirements) are paid a substantial premium I haven't found this to be true, but my experience is limited, and it probably depends on country / region.

quintussss 4y ago

This mindset is exactly why we all have to suffer with slugish electron apps and bloated websites instead of using fast, native apps written in something like Qt.

moring 4y ago
The actual reason is that nobody (probably not even you) wants to pay the substantially higher price of developing native apps, nor do they want the suffer the loads of crash bugs that inevitably come with using lower-level technology. The mindset of developers is what it is because the requirements demand so.
- account42 4y ago
  Oh please, "loads of crash bugs" are not and were never inevitable. And for the user experience, an exception that prevents you from doing what you want is not even that much better than a hard crash. And let's not pretent that users are ever given a choice in the quality vs. cost tradeoff except for looking for a different program entirely. And even that is often not an option because the software needs to interact with systems that are actively hostile towards third-party clients. We shouldn't excuse mediocre software just because the market puts up with mediocrity.
  - moring 4y ago
    > We shouldn't excuse mediocre software just because the market puts up with mediocrity. The market has stopped putting up with mediocre software and chose higher-quality alternatives. The one thing that is not obvious to developers is that the market considers faster software with less features, hard crashes and limited portability as much worse than the web-based alternatives.
    - claytongulick 4y ago
      The market also likes software that ships faster. With html + js, we're able to deliver a great user experience in a fraction of the time. Also, the desktop bundlers are getting better over time.
    - dataangel 4y ago
      I think this is the wrong take away. The market made a few specific decisions: 1) Users don't want to deal with installation. 2) New developers are attracted towards the least steep difficulty incline -- learn HTML first, then some CSS, then some JS. At each stage you can do something visible and useful, and the next step is within your grasp. 3) Most investment goes towards companies adding value to the web, and companies that do that will tend to use web technologies first. I think crashes have very little do with it. In my experience web apps have just as many stability problems and broken features. Also important that #2 means that developers that can work on systems where web solutions can't work (things that really need C++ because of realtime requirements) are paid a substantial premium. So the market has also decided the people who can do native well are more valuable.
      - moring 4y ago
        > 1) Users don't want to deal with installation. That is definitely one of the top selling points for web-based solutions, agreed. > 2) ... At each stage you can do something visible and useful BTW is this still true in 2022? My totally out-of-nothing guess would be that SAAS offerings and website builders have made people with HTML + minimal JS knowledge next to useless. > 3) Most investment goes towards companies adding value to the web, and companies that do that will tend to use web technologies first. OTOH, I have been involved in a project where the web was found to be superior to the alternatives. It does have to do a lot with (no) installation, though. A related project, OTOH, is moving their UI from Swing to the Browser. While this is just the UI, the remaining code was written in Java, not native. I think I do agree with the claims as long as Java/C#/similar get added to the "native" side of the argument, because I really see them eating C/C++'s lunch, and this is only going to accelerate with Java becoming more and more independent of a separate JVM installation. > Also important that #2 means that developers that can work on systems where web solutions can't work (things that really need C++ because of realtime requirements) are paid a substantial premium I haven't found this to be true, but my experience is limited, and it probably depends on country / region.