5 ms·

What you’re describing sounds pretty much like any programming language.

ajkjk 3y ago
It really doesn't. It's much harder in every ecosystem except the web. Just shipping software to people at all is harder on every other platform, before even discussing how it's built.
- progmetaldev 3y ago
  I completely agree, especially in terms of deployment and forced upgrades for bug fixes, or even software you don't want users to have anymore.
  - HenryMulligan 3y ago
    > software you don't want users to have anymore This is exactly why some don't want software essential to their business or personal life to be dependent on the whims of somebody and their server.
    - progmetaldev 3y ago
      I agree with what you're saying, but I meant more if the developers opened up an API a bit too much. They can close that up and make their client software more stable.
    - Sebb767 3y ago
      You can easily package your webapp with an integrated server or electron, if you don't want to provide a server. Or simply put it on the source code platform of your choice and let users figure out hosting on their own. Plus, you get all of that for (basically) free, at the same time with hardly any extra effort! The web really is the most versatile of platforms.
    - ajkjk 3y ago
      Well, fine, but from the developer's point of view dealing with obsolete versions is a nightmare. It's bearable if the software is offline only, but most isn't.
      - lost_tourist 3y ago
        Then don't support obsolete versions?
        ajkjk 3y ago
        Exactly, what a nightmare! On the web there's just 'the one version' (notwithstanding people who leave the window open for weeks).
    - devjab 3y ago
      For businesses the two are rarely mutually exclusive depending. It’s obviously a little different for your personal life, because you’re going to have to spend resources to “self-host” but for a business those resources aren’t going to be too different from buying “classic” software. What we often do is to buy development, rather than buying a SaaS product. With the right setup, and this is easy to do with OSS as well, you can buy the development as needed from any of the software houses which specialise in this. You can then run things yourself, or buy the maintenance as well. This lets you control what happens with the software on the server and the server itself, and it’s frankly often a cheaper option than buying a SaaS solution for things that are vital to your business. At least in the long run. That being said, even with SaaS solutions you’re rarely at the “whims” or somebody and their server in enterprise SaaS solutions. I think Figma might be the only service we use where we’re at the “whims” of change that we aren’t able to control, and we do use quite a lot of SaaS software for things that are “less” important to us. As a private user you’re right though. You won’t be able to do those things. But the flip side is that you’re probably not going to find a lot of non web-solutions that don’t sort of work similar. Even with something like an e-mail client, you’re going to see updates, and you’re not going to be able to influence them anymore with a local program than you are with a web-based program. I guess you can continue to use an old version of something, but what then you’re using unsupported software, and eventually, you risk that it might not even run on your Operating System without massive amounts of efforts. Like, I have X-Com: Enemy Unknown on 3 floppy disks, even if I had something that could read floppy disks, I’m not sure how I’d even install it on windows 11 or my Mac.
      - auggierose 3y ago
        That has as a prerequisite that the software is available as OSS. Compare Figma with OSS. Why would anyone in their right mind not go the Figma way, if they actually have to offer something valuable?
- aragilar 3y ago
  Some platforms seem to require a large amount of effort to ship on by design (iOS being an obvious example), but if by the "web" you mean client side (server-side I agree is easier, but at some level any system where most of the work is done remotely/outside user control is easier to work with than one where users have control), then the web has its own issues with shipping software (e.g. bundlers, API support), and lacks support for really digging into the device/platform (for good reasons). Depending on who you're targeting (in terms of both users and developers), the web may or may not be easier than "native" (e.g. R solves problems for users that the JS ecosystem can't solve).

It really doesn't. It's much harder in every ecosystem except the web. Just shipping software to people at all is harder on every other platform, before even discussing how it's built.

progmetaldev 3y ago
I completely agree, especially in terms of deployment and forced upgrades for bug fixes, or even software you don't want users to have anymore.
- HenryMulligan 3y ago
  > software you don't want users to have anymore This is exactly why some don't want software essential to their business or personal life to be dependent on the whims of somebody and their server.
  - progmetaldev 3y ago
    I agree with what you're saying, but I meant more if the developers opened up an API a bit too much. They can close that up and make their client software more stable.
  - Sebb767 3y ago
    You can easily package your webapp with an integrated server or electron, if you don't want to provide a server. Or simply put it on the source code platform of your choice and let users figure out hosting on their own. Plus, you get all of that for (basically) free, at the same time with hardly any extra effort! The web really is the most versatile of platforms.
  - ajkjk 3y ago
    Well, fine, but from the developer's point of view dealing with obsolete versions is a nightmare. It's bearable if the software is offline only, but most isn't.
    - lost_tourist 3y ago
      Then don't support obsolete versions?
      - ajkjk 3y ago
        Exactly, what a nightmare! On the web there's just 'the one version' (notwithstanding people who leave the window open for weeks).
  - devjab 3y ago
    For businesses the two are rarely mutually exclusive depending. It’s obviously a little different for your personal life, because you’re going to have to spend resources to “self-host” but for a business those resources aren’t going to be too different from buying “classic” software. What we often do is to buy development, rather than buying a SaaS product. With the right setup, and this is easy to do with OSS as well, you can buy the development as needed from any of the software houses which specialise in this. You can then run things yourself, or buy the maintenance as well. This lets you control what happens with the software on the server and the server itself, and it’s frankly often a cheaper option than buying a SaaS solution for things that are vital to your business. At least in the long run. That being said, even with SaaS solutions you’re rarely at the “whims” or somebody and their server in enterprise SaaS solutions. I think Figma might be the only service we use where we’re at the “whims” of change that we aren’t able to control, and we do use quite a lot of SaaS software for things that are “less” important to us. As a private user you’re right though. You won’t be able to do those things. But the flip side is that you’re probably not going to find a lot of non web-solutions that don’t sort of work similar. Even with something like an e-mail client, you’re going to see updates, and you’re not going to be able to influence them anymore with a local program than you are with a web-based program. I guess you can continue to use an old version of something, but what then you’re using unsupported software, and eventually, you risk that it might not even run on your Operating System without massive amounts of efforts. Like, I have X-Com: Enemy Unknown on 3 floppy disks, even if I had something that could read floppy disks, I’m not sure how I’d even install it on windows 11 or my Mac.
    - auggierose 3y ago
      That has as a prerequisite that the software is available as OSS. Compare Figma with OSS. Why would anyone in their right mind not go the Figma way, if they actually have to offer something valuable?
aragilar 3y ago
Some platforms seem to require a large amount of effort to ship on by design (iOS being an obvious example), but if by the "web" you mean client side (server-side I agree is easier, but at some level any system where most of the work is done remotely/outside user control is easier to work with than one where users have control), then the web has its own issues with shipping software (e.g. bundlers, API support), and lacks support for really digging into the device/platform (for good reasons). Depending on who you're targeting (in terms of both users and developers), the web may or may not be easier than "native" (e.g. R solves problems for users that the JS ecosystem can't solve).