6 ms·

> I think web is taking over on Windows because any of 10 or 15 different design systems can get you to a better app than the native (whatever that means) toolk

> I think web is taking over on Windows because any of 10 or 15 different design systems can get you to a better app than the native (whatever that means) toolkits in much less time. It is easier to get a decent color picker in a web app than a WPF, WinForms, UWP, WinUI, or Win32 app (assuming you have a reasonably high expectation for UI/UX, as I do). I'll grant you that it's probably easier and cheaper to get a workable "color picker in a web app," but I don't grant that going that route will get you a "better app than the native." The reason why the web stuff is taking over is because it's cheaper while providing minimally-viable functionality, full stop. It's not actually good in any other way. IMHO, the trend here is similar to the one consumer printers took.

bigyikes 4y ago
The word “cheaper” here is doing a lot of work. Yes, it’s cheaper, meaning that it allows you to ship more stuff faster. You could make the argument that this results in lower quality, but this isn’t always the case. (For example, VS Code feels great!) Still, I’d often rather have twice the features at 80% the quality, instead of an extremely high quality product that doesn’t have the features I need. Cheapness leads to abundance leads to innovation.
- anthk 4y ago
  Innovation? More like W95 (or even ME) compared to NT, and don't even start to compare ME against BSD/Solaris/Linux or Mac OS X.
- 5d8767c68926 4y ago
  We're taking about a trillion dollar company who can afford all of the talent and has very limited time pressure. I would prefer they do it correctly.
  - bigyikes 4y ago
    This misses the point. A trillion dollars goes a lot further when the software is cheaper.
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      But VSCode isn't cheaper. They had to pour millions of dollars and countless man hours into it. And none of those translated into any meaningful improvements of the platform.
      - anilakar 4y ago
        It isn't cheap wrt hardware requirements either. My 2.5 year old work laptop becomes unbelievably sluggish if I have to keep multiple Electron apps open.
- kajaktum 4y ago
  VSCode is adequate, not great. The bar for responsive and minimal application is so bad these days thanks to web apps.
  - Kiro 4y ago
    It's great and the best desktop app I've ever used.
    - jcelerier 4y ago
      I'm sorry for you if it's the best that you have ever experienced. It is very subpar and slow.
      - Semaphor 4y ago
        It's the best electron app I've ever used. It's so much faster than anything else I've seen use electron.
        tlavoie 4y ago
        That's quite the back-handed compliment though, isn't it?
        Semaphor 4y ago
        Not really, I’d say VS Code is the only electron app that can stand up to native apps. It’s not the best, but it’s pretty good. Now, for electron, it’s certainly not a compliment. From electron apps I’ve used, only VS Code is great, Discord is good, and everything else is just really, really bad. It’s apparently extremely hard to use electron and have something close to decent performance.
        tlavoie 4y ago
        Right, sorry, I meant back-handed for Electron. I have used VS Code a bit for a class, but am usually an Emacs user.
- Asmod4n 4y ago
  VS Code isn’t a web app. The first release was and since then most of it has been rewritten to be a native app.
  - somat 4y ago
    Are you sure? https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/editor/vscode-web https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/editor/vscode-web
ryukoposting 4y ago
I think I agree with you, but I need a clear definition of "cheaper." To me, "cheaper" means that companies are putting fewer resources into Windows-specific app development. That's not unexpected, given large portions of their user base are using MacOS, Android, or iOS. Why would I hire 8 developers to make 4 apps, when I could hire 6 developers to make make 3 or even 2 apps? Oh, as an added bonus, now my app can also be loaded straight from a browser, no installation necessary? And I don't have nagging complaints from small-market-share users (Linux and BSD) complaining that my app doesn't work on their machines? Seems like a no-brainer. From a business perspective, if the end product is good enough that the customers don't complain, what reason is there to not* use web technologies? Don't get me wrong, I hate that half the software I use today is just a glorified Chrome tab. I hate how I need 16GB of RAM to do my job.
- anthk 4y ago
  Lazarus will target MacOS, Windows, Linux and all the BSD's creating binaries for all of them from a single source.
- hulitu 4y ago
  > I think I agree with you, but I need a clear definition of "cheaper." I think the best definition of MS products in regard with quality and usability is "cheaper" as in "he is cheap". (i.e. only using the lowest quality crap available)
vasvir 4y ago
Also the deployment makes much more sense in the web. Users are always in the latest version of the software with no install / update shenanigans. This has other implications as well. The application may change internal formats since it doesn't have to worry about older instances of itself etc. And if you build an updater in your app like chrome / firefox then it needs to be disabled for Linux distributions that have their own package manager.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

bigyikes 4y ago

The word “cheaper” here is doing a lot of work. Yes, it’s cheaper, meaning that it allows you to ship more stuff faster. You could make the argument that this results in lower quality, but this isn’t always the case. (For example, VS Code feels great!) Still, I’d often rather have twice the features at 80% the quality, instead of an extremely high quality product that doesn’t have the features I need. Cheapness leads to abundance leads to innovation.

anthk 4y ago
Innovation? More like W95 (or even ME) compared to NT, and don't even start to compare ME against BSD/Solaris/Linux or Mac OS X.
5d8767c68926 4y ago
We're taking about a trillion dollar company who can afford all of the talent and has very limited time pressure. I would prefer they do it correctly.
- bigyikes 4y ago
  This misses the point. A trillion dollars goes a lot further when the software is cheaper.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    But VSCode isn't cheaper. They had to pour millions of dollars and countless man hours into it. And none of those translated into any meaningful improvements of the platform.
    - anilakar 4y ago
      It isn't cheap wrt hardware requirements either. My 2.5 year old work laptop becomes unbelievably sluggish if I have to keep multiple Electron apps open.
kajaktum 4y ago
VSCode is adequate, not great. The bar for responsive and minimal application is so bad these days thanks to web apps.
- Kiro 4y ago
  It's great and the best desktop app I've ever used.
  - jcelerier 4y ago
    I'm sorry for you if it's the best that you have ever experienced. It is very subpar and slow.
    - Semaphor 4y ago
      It's the best electron app I've ever used. It's so much faster than anything else I've seen use electron.
      - tlavoie 4y ago
        That's quite the back-handed compliment though, isn't it?
        Semaphor 4y ago
        Not really, I’d say VS Code is the only electron app that can stand up to native apps. It’s not the best, but it’s pretty good. Now, for electron, it’s certainly not a compliment. From electron apps I’ve used, only VS Code is great, Discord is good, and everything else is just really, really bad. It’s apparently extremely hard to use electron and have something close to decent performance.
        tlavoie 4y ago
        Right, sorry, I meant back-handed for Electron. I have used VS Code a bit for a class, but am usually an Emacs user.
Asmod4n 4y ago
VS Code isn’t a web app. The first release was and since then most of it has been rewritten to be a native app.
- somat 4y ago
  Are you sure? https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/editor/vscode-web https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/editor/vscode-web

ryukoposting 4y ago

I think I agree with you, but I need a clear definition of "cheaper." To me, "cheaper" means that companies are putting fewer resources into Windows-specific app development. That's not unexpected, given large portions of their user base are using MacOS, Android, or iOS. Why would I hire 8 developers to make 4 apps, when I could hire 6 developers to make make 3 or even 2 apps? Oh, as an added bonus, now my app can also be loaded straight from a browser, no installation necessary? And I don't have nagging complaints from small-market-share users (Linux and BSD) complaining that my app doesn't work on their machines? Seems like a no-brainer. From a business perspective, if the end product is good enough that the customers don't complain, what reason is there to not* use web technologies? Don't get me wrong, I hate that half the software I use today is just a glorified Chrome tab. I hate how I need 16GB of RAM to do my job.

anthk 4y ago
Lazarus will target MacOS, Windows, Linux and all the BSD's creating binaries for all of them from a single source.
hulitu 4y ago
> I think I agree with you, but I need a clear definition of "cheaper." I think the best definition of MS products in regard with quality and usability is "cheaper" as in "he is cheap". (i.e. only using the lowest quality crap available)

vasvir 4y ago

Also the deployment makes much more sense in the web. Users are always in the latest version of the software with no install / update shenanigans. This has other implications as well. The application may change internal formats since it doesn't have to worry about older instances of itself etc. And if you build an updater in your app like chrome / firefox then it needs to be disabled for Linux distributions that have their own package manager.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]