5 ms·

Honestly - I think you're wrong here. You seem to be stuck in the era where the "web" was really about distributing text content - often blogs or articles. I'

Honestly - I think you're wrong here. You seem to be stuck in the era where the "web" was really about distributing text content - often blogs or articles. I'd argue that's not really what the web is anymore. A good chunk of it still does that (for example - this discussion probably falls into that category). But there's a whole section that actually is distributing applications using html/css/js. They are not distributing long form text. They are providing spreadsheets, collaborative word documents, rich monitoring and analytics solutions, custom CAD software (yes, really - https://www.tinkercad.com/ https://www.tinkercad.com/), online chat applications, plus far more than I can list. Basically - if there was a desktop app for something, there's probably a website version of it now too. So - no, I don't agree that the web is just text. I also don't agree with your main focus comparing it to books. Imagine the fucking gall it would take to walk into a comic conference and say this: "Imagine if people criticised books for the fonts they are printed in, how the paragraphs are formatted, whether they have images, and so on." How out of touch would you seem?

bobajeff 4y ago
That's the thing is though if most of the web is about sending documents and media, while only a fraction of it is spent on delivering desktop applications, then wouldn't it be better to just split off the part of the runtime needed for applications into it's own thing so we don't have to run untrusted code just to read a blog or watch YouTube?
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  You're more than welcome to do that if you'd like, but most users don't like - because it turns out documents and applications tend to go hand in hand (just like your code is data, and your data can be code). Basically - that line is a hell of a lot more blurry than you're making it out to be. If you don't want to run javascript - use a browser that doesn't run javascript, or turn it off in your browser of choice. If you don't want to run js to play youtube - open the video url in VLC. But again - I think you're glossing over the progressive nature of a lot of these applications. Ex: Youtube isn't just a video feed (despite what we'd sometimes like). It's an application with comments, streaming, voting, searching, sharing, and many more features. Can some of those be done without JS? Yes. Does it make since to use JS to implement many of them? Yes. Can some of them only exist with JS? Yes. Go click the "Go live" button in Youtube and then come back and tell me how you're planning on implementing that application feature in plain ol' HTML?
  - bobajeff 4y ago
    Of course documents and applications go hand in hand. You need applications to view them after all. But do documents need to also be applications? I submit they do not. Maybe YouTube has to have js for it's features but I don't accept that that's good. I don't accept that what YouTube, Twitch, Vimeo and Dailymotion provides warrants the need for each to have their own separate applications that have to be downloaded and allowed to run on my system.
    - horsawlarway 4y ago
      I can understand that. In some situations I can even respect that. I think - sadly - you're tilting at windmills. In other situations - I'd argue you're just wrong. The simplest benefit of a web app vs a local app is exactly the isolation that the browser provides. To be blunt - the applications from youtube/dailymotion/twitch/etc are NOT running on your system. They're running on the browser. They can't touch your files by default, they can't touch your other apps, they are uninstalled when you close the tab. That's incredibly powerful. It's incredibly liberating too. Users in places with fairly tight restrictions on installed software are almost always allowed to use most web apps (the limitation is usually concerns around inappropriate content - not so much security). Basically - The browser is the OS that is literally designed around allowing you to run unknown code downloaded from other networks, from untrusted sources, with a modicum of security and consistency. I think it's very, very hard to surpass the browser as a distribution method, and I think the possibilities it allows are, frankly, miles beyond basically anything else we've invented in the space. Do some folks go overboard and create bloated, crappy web apps? Absolutely. Just like some desktop apps are complete pieces of garbage. Does that mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water? My opinion is a resounding "no".
      - Phrodo_00 4y ago
        > the applications from youtube/dailymotion/twitch/etc are NOT running on your system. They're running on the browser. The browser runs in your system. The applications run in your system. This is as inane as saying any other interpreted language doesn't run in your system. > they are uninstalled when you close the tab. Except for all of the parts that aren't There's no reason you can't achieve the same level of isolation in other runtimes. I don't think it's likely this would take off, obviously, we're already too deep into the browser-as-shitty-os rabbit hole.
AtlasBarfed 4y ago
I think the point is that the modern web repeated the doom of Microsoft Office to a certain extent. There are code libraries and horrid Microsoft libraries for extracting information from Office documents, or API calls to Office itself to do so, but it is NOT EASY. And wow does Microsoft love this, because you end up buying office ... everywhere. The modern web may not be so centrally owned as the Microsoft Office monopoly, but it does bury all forms of information under ludicrously bloated generated javascript / css. HTML actually is the forgotten stepchild of the javascript / css / html base of the web. While WebAssembly offers hope for undermining the javascript monopoly, it probably won't help. From where we are now, the data structuring and extraction is basically enabled by HTML. Javascript/CSS are obfuscators, not enablers to that. And to the point of many, that's how the tech industry likes it, because extractable / analyzable HTML pages are hackable and reformable and the tech companies lose control of "their" data (which is your data that you gave them, but that's another rant). That is, they lose the ability to reliably get all the ad revenue.
CRConrad 4y ago
Ah, so you're saying the Web of today is to the Web as originally conceived like comic books are to real books? Yup, thanks, that sums it up quite nicely...

bobajeff 4y ago

That's the thing is though if most of the web is about sending documents and media, while only a fraction of it is spent on delivering desktop applications, then wouldn't it be better to just split off the part of the runtime needed for applications into it's own thing so we don't have to run untrusted code just to read a blog or watch YouTube?

horsawlarway 4y ago
You're more than welcome to do that if you'd like, but most users don't like - because it turns out documents and applications tend to go hand in hand (just like your code is data, and your data can be code). Basically - that line is a hell of a lot more blurry than you're making it out to be. If you don't want to run javascript - use a browser that doesn't run javascript, or turn it off in your browser of choice. If you don't want to run js to play youtube - open the video url in VLC. But again - I think you're glossing over the progressive nature of a lot of these applications. Ex: Youtube isn't just a video feed (despite what we'd sometimes like). It's an application with comments, streaming, voting, searching, sharing, and many more features. Can some of those be done without JS? Yes. Does it make since to use JS to implement many of them? Yes. Can some of them only exist with JS? Yes. Go click the "Go live" button in Youtube and then come back and tell me how you're planning on implementing that application feature in plain ol' HTML?
- bobajeff 4y ago
  Of course documents and applications go hand in hand. You need applications to view them after all. But do documents need to also be applications? I submit they do not. Maybe YouTube has to have js for it's features but I don't accept that that's good. I don't accept that what YouTube, Twitch, Vimeo and Dailymotion provides warrants the need for each to have their own separate applications that have to be downloaded and allowed to run on my system.
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    I can understand that. In some situations I can even respect that. I think - sadly - you're tilting at windmills. In other situations - I'd argue you're just wrong. The simplest benefit of a web app vs a local app is exactly the isolation that the browser provides. To be blunt - the applications from youtube/dailymotion/twitch/etc are NOT running on your system. They're running on the browser. They can't touch your files by default, they can't touch your other apps, they are uninstalled when you close the tab. That's incredibly powerful. It's incredibly liberating too. Users in places with fairly tight restrictions on installed software are almost always allowed to use most web apps (the limitation is usually concerns around inappropriate content - not so much security). Basically - The browser is the OS that is literally designed around allowing you to run unknown code downloaded from other networks, from untrusted sources, with a modicum of security and consistency. I think it's very, very hard to surpass the browser as a distribution method, and I think the possibilities it allows are, frankly, miles beyond basically anything else we've invented in the space. Do some folks go overboard and create bloated, crappy web apps? Absolutely. Just like some desktop apps are complete pieces of garbage. Does that mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water? My opinion is a resounding "no".
    - Phrodo_00 4y ago
      > the applications from youtube/dailymotion/twitch/etc are NOT running on your system. They're running on the browser. The browser runs in your system. The applications run in your system. This is as inane as saying any other interpreted language doesn't run in your system. > they are uninstalled when you close the tab. Except for all of the parts that aren't There's no reason you can't achieve the same level of isolation in other runtimes. I don't think it's likely this would take off, obviously, we're already too deep into the browser-as-shitty-os rabbit hole.

AtlasBarfed 4y ago

I think the point is that the modern web repeated the doom of Microsoft Office to a certain extent. There are code libraries and horrid Microsoft libraries for extracting information from Office documents, or API calls to Office itself to do so, but it is NOT EASY. And wow does Microsoft love this, because you end up buying office ... everywhere. The modern web may not be so centrally owned as the Microsoft Office monopoly, but it does bury all forms of information under ludicrously bloated generated javascript / css. HTML actually is the forgotten stepchild of the javascript / css / html base of the web. While WebAssembly offers hope for undermining the javascript monopoly, it probably won't help. From where we are now, the data structuring and extraction is basically enabled by HTML. Javascript/CSS are obfuscators, not enablers to that. And to the point of many, that's how the tech industry likes it, because extractable / analyzable HTML pages are hackable and reformable and the tech companies lose control of "their" data (which is your data that you gave them, but that's another rant). That is, they lose the ability to reliably get all the ad revenue.

CRConrad 4y ago

Ah, so you're saying the Web of today is to the Web as originally conceived like comic books are to real books? Yup, thanks, that sums it up quite nicely...