4 ms·

Wait, what? Why should we be holding back the web to satisfy your definition of what the web should be? It's up to websites to decide what technologies to take

Wait, what? Why should we be holding back the web to satisfy your definition of what the web should be? It's up to websites to decide what technologies to take advantage of, as it's always been. JavaScript is ubiquitous now, but it wasn't always -- some sites used it, others didn't. The web didn't die, and eventually adoption became widespread. Same goes for other advancements. If I want to browse Wikipedia, I should be able to do so without having a top of the line computer running the latest browser (although Firefox runs on just about anything). However, why should we not allow someone to create, say, a multi-user realtime image editor, merely because it doesn't run on your computer? The irony of your rant is that these APIs are to help combat exactly what you're afraid of. In theory, these APIs will eventually work on an iPhone, WP7 or Android phone. Currently, you need to buy an iPhone if you want to use an iPhone app. These APIs were created in order to make "apps" platform agnostic, via the web.

peterwwillis 15y ago
Sure, assuming the device supports the API. We all know about Apple's fascist policies about what its apps can and cannot do. They can always choose not to support your app or your app's features if it's in their best interests. Alas, I think you miss my point. It's not just that "the web isn't the web anymore." It's that this push for more and more technology where it isn't needed will eventually impede people's lives (and truly it is not needed - a webpage that emulates an app should just be an app). It adds to the further complexity and cost of the modern age without giving us something of fair value in return. It's an unfair tax on humanity. I understand that somebody has a need for a multi-user realtime image editor. But that should be an app, not a web page. Obviously not every device is going to be able to do everything. But in most cases they could if they were implemented the proper way. I guess this kind of argument isn't for Hacker News. I'm the kind of guy who wants to throw his smartphone away, who doesn't own a TV, who doesn't go on Facebook. I'm not interested in giving chunks of my life over to consumerism and mindless wastes of entertainment. And i'm not interested in pushing new technology where it was never meant to be just because it can be done. By the way, JavaScript never should have been ubiquitous. It started as a hack and now it's a monster.

peterwwillis 15y ago

Sure, assuming the device supports the API. We all know about Apple's fascist policies about what its apps can and cannot do. They can always choose not to support your app or your app's features if it's in their best interests. Alas, I think you miss my point. It's not just that "the web isn't the web anymore." It's that this push for more and more technology where it isn't needed will eventually impede people's lives (and truly it is not needed - a webpage that emulates an app should just be an app). It adds to the further complexity and cost of the modern age without giving us something of fair value in return. It's an unfair tax on humanity. I understand that somebody has a need for a multi-user realtime image editor. But that should be an app, not a web page. Obviously not every device is going to be able to do everything. But in most cases they could if they were implemented the proper way. I guess this kind of argument isn't for Hacker News. I'm the kind of guy who wants to throw his smartphone away, who doesn't own a TV, who doesn't go on Facebook. I'm not interested in giving chunks of my life over to consumerism and mindless wastes of entertainment. And i'm not interested in pushing new technology where it was never meant to be just because it can be done. By the way, JavaScript never should have been ubiquitous. It started as a hack and now it's a monster.