4 ms·

I am trying to understand why the negativity towards a design that had been celebrated (in the abstract) for so long and even has a dramatic success (the browse

I am trying to understand why the negativity towards a design that had been celebrated (in the abstract) for so long and even has a dramatic success (the browser). The argument "it does not solve any problem I have" must be taken seriously for what it implies, but has less serious implications if the problem domain people consider is narrower than what the hypermedia design envisaged two decades ago. This feels a bit like mathematics: expediency, predominant business models driving requirements etc dont change fundamental truths or properties. To say 'i dont need complex numbers' just begs for Fourier to come up with fourier analysis :-)

bryanrasmussen 4y ago
>The argument "it does not solve any problem I have" must be taken seriously for what it implies I find it difficult to take it seriously because the people making it do not acknowledge any of the history that has led them to this point. They are in a point where they can say that the architecture that underpins the web does not solve their current problems because they are building things on top of that solution. For a lot of people the OS is a wrapper for the browser and that's it. We could reasonably say for those people the OS does not solve any of their problems, except for the fact that it exists to enable them to have a browser and go to the few places they go to. HATEOAS doesn't solve many developer's problems in the same way because those problems are enabled by sitting on top of the solution that is HATEOAS. Also I can't remember who it was that said it, it was back in the time when people were arguing about SOAP vs. REST which, well whatever, I think it might have been Tim Bray or Paul Prescod and they said in discussing what was needed to build a world wide network for information sharing they were predisposed to accept the arguments of the people who had actually done such a thing.
- college_physics 4y ago
  > They are in a point where they can say that the architecture that underpins the web does not solve their current problems because they are building things on top of that solution. I am afraid the original web architecture is not really that useful or important for the "web application" model. I mean the basic idea is you ship an entire application in javascript or whatever and then make API calls. The user is never meant to leave the "app" anyway. The rest of the digital universe might as well not exist.
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    Well that brings up the discussion we see around here a lot as to whether the "web application" model should be applied to all sites, etc. Is the model actually being applied to sites it shouldn't be, causing developers to redevelop functionality (badly) already provided by the web? I believe the answer to the first is no, and the second is yes? A badly applied model is a mistake, and one should not base arguments on such mistakes.
KrugerDunnings 4y ago
A lot of us have tried very hard to design software this way and afterwards had to admit it did not work. There is a big difference between making a web browser and a web application, the first needs specs with careful semantics but with the second anything goes. At some point the specs ala W3C just get in the way of the creativity of building something. The comparison to the complex numbers is unfair, they are actually useful and show up in physics in all sort of places.
- college_physics 4y ago
  > The comparison to the complex numbers is unfair the analogy probably only goes so far but it is meant to suggest that there might be a entire class of useful things that are not yet developed because the machinery for doing so is not fully developed / understood. > A lot of us have tried very hard to design software this way and afterwards had to admit it did not work I can only respect that. But I think we can also take a step back and look at all these web applications that do work (in a certain context) and ask whether they can withstand and evolve to cope with the information explosion that only gets worse. Evolvability, making use of linked data, composing useful things from diverse sources etc. These are not pipedreams or academic pursuits. Having designs that will help build tools adapted to this reality could unlock enormous potential.

bryanrasmussen 4y ago

>The argument "it does not solve any problem I have" must be taken seriously for what it implies I find it difficult to take it seriously because the people making it do not acknowledge any of the history that has led them to this point. They are in a point where they can say that the architecture that underpins the web does not solve their current problems because they are building things on top of that solution. For a lot of people the OS is a wrapper for the browser and that's it. We could reasonably say for those people the OS does not solve any of their problems, except for the fact that it exists to enable them to have a browser and go to the few places they go to. HATEOAS doesn't solve many developer's problems in the same way because those problems are enabled by sitting on top of the solution that is HATEOAS. Also I can't remember who it was that said it, it was back in the time when people were arguing about SOAP vs. REST which, well whatever, I think it might have been Tim Bray or Paul Prescod and they said in discussing what was needed to build a world wide network for information sharing they were predisposed to accept the arguments of the people who had actually done such a thing.

college_physics 4y ago
> They are in a point where they can say that the architecture that underpins the web does not solve their current problems because they are building things on top of that solution. I am afraid the original web architecture is not really that useful or important for the "web application" model. I mean the basic idea is you ship an entire application in javascript or whatever and then make API calls. The user is never meant to leave the "app" anyway. The rest of the digital universe might as well not exist.
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  Well that brings up the discussion we see around here a lot as to whether the "web application" model should be applied to all sites, etc. Is the model actually being applied to sites it shouldn't be, causing developers to redevelop functionality (badly) already provided by the web? I believe the answer to the first is no, and the second is yes? A badly applied model is a mistake, and one should not base arguments on such mistakes.

KrugerDunnings 4y ago

A lot of us have tried very hard to design software this way and afterwards had to admit it did not work. There is a big difference between making a web browser and a web application, the first needs specs with careful semantics but with the second anything goes. At some point the specs ala W3C just get in the way of the creativity of building something. The comparison to the complex numbers is unfair, they are actually useful and show up in physics in all sort of places.

college_physics 4y ago
> The comparison to the complex numbers is unfair the analogy probably only goes so far but it is meant to suggest that there might be a entire class of useful things that are not yet developed because the machinery for doing so is not fully developed / understood. > A lot of us have tried very hard to design software this way and afterwards had to admit it did not work I can only respect that. But I think we can also take a step back and look at all these web applications that do work (in a certain context) and ask whether they can withstand and evolve to cope with the information explosion that only gets worse. Evolvability, making use of linked data, composing useful things from diverse sources etc. These are not pipedreams or academic pursuits. Having designs that will help build tools adapted to this reality could unlock enormous potential.