7 ms·

try hover.com it is a responsive website, they do not have native apps, you can still use it on a phone I just checked you can use it standalone if you want t

try hover.com it is a responsive website, they do not have native apps, you can still use it on a phone I just checked you can use it standalone if you want to, I myself choose to use this website from the browser on linux... but I actually "installed" it on android and if I used my mobile more, I might just want to use this "app" this way every website is a potential web app if written responding to screen sizes correctly inherently nothing is bloated... actually, I do not really understand why you hate web apps that much, just do not use them! use them in your favourite browser or whatever whether a sotware shit or not, depends on the developer, not whether it is c++, java, swift, android-java or js...

troupo 3y ago
> try hover.com > it is a responsive website, they do not have native apps, you can still use it on a phone I see a largely static site with very little functionality. During search the site jumps when the progress bar disappears, so you can easily misclick on items in the list (I did at least once). During checkout it takes a second or so to add additional items to the order (could be long network connectivity, but there's no indication on the page). I'm supposed to be impressed? You call this an application? GoDaddy of all sites had all that in mid-2000s. Just checked: they still do, and it's faster, the page doesn't jump around, and additional selections are applied immediately. If something takes time, there's a loading indicator (inline if needed). Okay, I decided to sign up and see what's there. Literally nothing works, but that's not really important. Here's the sad/funny part: A static page showing domain details with literally just text on the page and a few icons requires 2.5 megabytes of Javascript. Yes. This page with almost nothing on it needs 2.5 megabytes of Javascript: https://dmitriid.com/media/6/b/1/f/912c-e91b-4530-af54-092479b35220.png https://dmitriid.com/media/6/b/1/f/912c-e91b-4530-af54-09247... Yes, you said it correctly: "inherently nothing is bloated". You still managed to bloat it. Go and read "Performance Inequality Gap 2024": https://infrequently.org/2024/01/performance-inequality-gap-2024/ https://infrequently.org/2024/01/performance-inequality-gap-... (I don't agree with Alex Russel on many things, but his performance analyses are always spot on). > every website is a potential web app if written responding to screen sizes correctly Honestly, web people should leave their bubble at least for a nanosecond from time to time. No, a site displaying a few hundred lines of text and a minimally functional checkout (and still doing a rather poor job of it) is not an application. Having a responsive design does not make a website into an application. > I do not really understand why you hate web apps that much, just do not use them! use them in your favourite browser or whatever Because I'm forced to use them as they are the cheapest fastest way to make stuff for people who wouldn't know a good UI/UX (and good apps, and good programming practices) if it stared them in the face. And who cannot even design a text page without requiring enough resources to power a small town. > whether a sotware shit or not, depends on the developer, not whether it is c++, java, swift, android-java or js... And yet, the shittiest software is somehow still made for the web, en masse.
- troupo 3y ago
  So, a day and a half later still no answer why "nothing is inherently bloated" is illustrated with an example of a few lines of text rendered with 2.5 megabytes of Javascript
  - szasamasa 3y ago
    I rarely use mobile and social networking and I actually rarely come back to my comments, so much time but here I am, the reply is: hover is a minimalistic usability example, I will not show my website yet, but I know it is totally possible for good or very-good programmers to write in application style, using web tech try this one: https://web.telegram.org/k/ https://web.telegram.org/k/ the writers are mathematicians I guess, russian minimalists... I remember I checked their site and it did not seem to use bloated stuff compiled native UX code may be less kb than minimized js but actually I have never seen comparisons and I do not know much about UX programming in java, c++, android-java or swift or the like however, a website can dynamically load (can, 99% do not make use of it) just in time what you need (or as a compromise, preload the next possible steps)... UX code, app code anything you can make the client download always the very necessary code on its user journey... even UX code, app code... what I find better in native is the built in bot protection :)
- szasamasa 3y ago
  thanks for the analysis :) I do not use and know good web apps in the application sense, in plenty of comments I argued it is the tech of the future because web designers are mainly not real programmers and hence bad in app programming. I mentioned hover (I did not write it) as an example that was in my mind that they asked us years back whether we needed a mobile app or is it enough to have responsive website. I am the opposite of power user of mobiles, I do everything on linux desktop, I hate 99% of websites. So now I "installed" hover again on my phone because I already de-installed it. It was 5 sec, I got a button, I pressed it, and signed in with my pass manager, having an authenticator app activated it was still a breeze. Most websites would have already lost me... There I have a feeling of a website but I see everything clearly and I can use it effectively, change things, pay things etc. One thing that was annoying in the 2 minute test of mine is that a seemingly button like thing did not work, you had to click on the text which I smiled at. For usability it was 8/10 for me which is great because most sites are 0-4... This site demonstrates not that it is a web app in the greatness sense but that there are so many things you do not need a native mobile app for, thanks to the web which can deliver usable standalone UX even from traditional web designers (hover engineers seem to be clever minimalistic web designers, not really modern web app programmers). What I can tell you, that good web programming is totally possible, it is a question of modern js, modern web api (so that you do not have to write things in js just call c++ or rust code that is implemented by very capable native app engineers), V8 optimization, most importantly good future web programmers vs. bad current web designers. Yes, hover makes 70 requests, 5 mb on first load, it is an old school website but still works for me, even on mobile. It is not a bombastic app but capable to become a standalone UX on mobile (aka app) where I can easily use it for the use cases there are in the web domain management domain of services :) Sorry but I do not really know actually what your point is. In a year or so you can take a look at my site, it will be the best web app you have ever seen. It is totally possible. If you wish I write you a c++ app that you want to die after using it and it will so bloated importing 10 million libraries that I actually never use that the compiler needs over a minute :) Still great performant c++ apps are possible. Tell me your angle. Are you a native app developer for mobile and you fear learning new things? Even if you invested a lot in coding in a language, I think 95% what your actual market value or knowledge is not the concrete language skill but years of programming experience. In addition, you can use webassembly for c++ code, on the backend you can use normal strongly typed native languages, the web is beautiful, complex but beautiful. What you see on current websites is a horror. In a way on hover.com too but usability is ok.

troupo 3y ago

> try hover.com > it is a responsive website, they do not have native apps, you can still use it on a phone I see a largely static site with very little functionality. During search the site jumps when the progress bar disappears, so you can easily misclick on items in the list (I did at least once). During checkout it takes a second or so to add additional items to the order (could be long network connectivity, but there's no indication on the page). I'm supposed to be impressed? You call this an application? GoDaddy of all sites had all that in mid-2000s. Just checked: they still do, and it's faster, the page doesn't jump around, and additional selections are applied immediately. If something takes time, there's a loading indicator (inline if needed). Okay, I decided to sign up and see what's there. Literally nothing works, but that's not really important. Here's the sad/funny part: A static page showing domain details with literally just text on the page and a few icons requires 2.5 megabytes of Javascript. Yes. This page with almost nothing on it needs 2.5 megabytes of Javascript: https://dmitriid.com/media/6/b/1/f/912c-e91b-4530-af54-092479b35220.png https://dmitriid.com/media/6/b/1/f/912c-e91b-4530-af54-09247... Yes, you said it correctly: "inherently nothing is bloated". You still managed to bloat it. Go and read "Performance Inequality Gap 2024": https://infrequently.org/2024/01/performance-inequality-gap-2024/ https://infrequently.org/2024/01/performance-inequality-gap-... (I don't agree with Alex Russel on many things, but his performance analyses are always spot on). > every website is a potential web app if written responding to screen sizes correctly Honestly, web people should leave their bubble at least for a nanosecond from time to time. No, a site displaying a few hundred lines of text and a minimally functional checkout (and still doing a rather poor job of it) is not an application. Having a responsive design does not make a website into an application. > I do not really understand why you hate web apps that much, just do not use them! use them in your favourite browser or whatever Because I'm forced to use them as they are the cheapest fastest way to make stuff for people who wouldn't know a good UI/UX (and good apps, and good programming practices) if it stared them in the face. And who cannot even design a text page without requiring enough resources to power a small town. > whether a sotware shit or not, depends on the developer, not whether it is c++, java, swift, android-java or js... And yet, the shittiest software is somehow still made for the web, en masse.

troupo 3y ago
So, a day and a half later still no answer why "nothing is inherently bloated" is illustrated with an example of a few lines of text rendered with 2.5 megabytes of Javascript
- szasamasa 3y ago
  I rarely use mobile and social networking and I actually rarely come back to my comments, so much time but here I am, the reply is: hover is a minimalistic usability example, I will not show my website yet, but I know it is totally possible for good or very-good programmers to write in application style, using web tech try this one: https://web.telegram.org/k/ https://web.telegram.org/k/ the writers are mathematicians I guess, russian minimalists... I remember I checked their site and it did not seem to use bloated stuff compiled native UX code may be less kb than minimized js but actually I have never seen comparisons and I do not know much about UX programming in java, c++, android-java or swift or the like however, a website can dynamically load (can, 99% do not make use of it) just in time what you need (or as a compromise, preload the next possible steps)... UX code, app code anything you can make the client download always the very necessary code on its user journey... even UX code, app code... what I find better in native is the built in bot protection :)
szasamasa 3y ago
thanks for the analysis :) I do not use and know good web apps in the application sense, in plenty of comments I argued it is the tech of the future because web designers are mainly not real programmers and hence bad in app programming. I mentioned hover (I did not write it) as an example that was in my mind that they asked us years back whether we needed a mobile app or is it enough to have responsive website. I am the opposite of power user of mobiles, I do everything on linux desktop, I hate 99% of websites. So now I "installed" hover again on my phone because I already de-installed it. It was 5 sec, I got a button, I pressed it, and signed in with my pass manager, having an authenticator app activated it was still a breeze. Most websites would have already lost me... There I have a feeling of a website but I see everything clearly and I can use it effectively, change things, pay things etc. One thing that was annoying in the 2 minute test of mine is that a seemingly button like thing did not work, you had to click on the text which I smiled at. For usability it was 8/10 for me which is great because most sites are 0-4... This site demonstrates not that it is a web app in the greatness sense but that there are so many things you do not need a native mobile app for, thanks to the web which can deliver usable standalone UX even from traditional web designers (hover engineers seem to be clever minimalistic web designers, not really modern web app programmers). What I can tell you, that good web programming is totally possible, it is a question of modern js, modern web api (so that you do not have to write things in js just call c++ or rust code that is implemented by very capable native app engineers), V8 optimization, most importantly good future web programmers vs. bad current web designers. Yes, hover makes 70 requests, 5 mb on first load, it is an old school website but still works for me, even on mobile. It is not a bombastic app but capable to become a standalone UX on mobile (aka app) where I can easily use it for the use cases there are in the web domain management domain of services :) Sorry but I do not really know actually what your point is. In a year or so you can take a look at my site, it will be the best web app you have ever seen. It is totally possible. If you wish I write you a c++ app that you want to die after using it and it will so bloated importing 10 million libraries that I actually never use that the compiler needs over a minute :) Still great performant c++ apps are possible. Tell me your angle. Are you a native app developer for mobile and you fear learning new things? Even if you invested a lot in coding in a language, I think 95% what your actual market value or knowledge is not the concrete language skill but years of programming experience. In addition, you can use webassembly for c++ code, on the backend you can use normal strongly typed native languages, the web is beautiful, complex but beautiful. What you see on current websites is a horror. In a way on hover.com too but usability is ok.