3 ms·

Until wasm fully kicks in in browsers, websites – or, more precisely, web apps - are just dev environment built on top one of the ill-suited tech stack for UI a

by divan 2y ago

Until wasm fully kicks in in browsers, websites – or, more precisely, web apps - are just dev environment built on top one of the ill-suited tech stack for UI apps. It's very limiting and provides one of the most frustrating dev experiences. A lot of developers prefer not to work with web simply because dev-experience is one of the worst, despite the sheer number of hacks on top of hacks built to hide the fundamental flaws of this UI stack.

beretguy 2y ago
No idea what you are talking about.
- divan 2y ago
  That's okay. I'm talking about the fact that web-stack is built on top typesetting engine (HTML) developed in 80-s for completely different task. Same for hackish scripting solution developed in two weeks and called Mocha (later renamed into Javascript), and an ad-hoc solution for styling HTML called CSS. These three pillars of web stack were never meant or designed to be used for UI prgramming and user-facing apps development. And also about the fact that if anyone wants to offer their app on the web, they have literally no choice but to write software using that stack. Many times the choice between "use web-stack" and "use proper UI framework" boils down to acceptability of slower and more painful distribution process. With web apps there is virtually no distribution process – users download app every time they want to use (because, of course, it makes sense, right?). But with other solutions, there is some sort of distribution process – like Apple/Google App Store or app repositories. Which makes app distribution more secure and efficient, but adds some pain to the process. If you want to reach as many users as possible, you need web, and that's how we all got locked in into writing apps using typesetting engine and pretending that it's okay.
  - xigoi 2y ago
    > And also about the fact that if anyone wants to offer their app on the web, they have literally no choice but to write software using that stack. If you want to offer your app on Android, you have literally no choice but to use Android Studio. Is that really better? At least it’s possible to write HTML on an old computer without running out of RAM.

by divan 2y ago

beretguy 2y ago

No idea what you are talking about.

divan 2y ago
That's okay. I'm talking about the fact that web-stack is built on top typesetting engine (HTML) developed in 80-s for completely different task. Same for hackish scripting solution developed in two weeks and called Mocha (later renamed into Javascript), and an ad-hoc solution for styling HTML called CSS. These three pillars of web stack were never meant or designed to be used for UI prgramming and user-facing apps development. And also about the fact that if anyone wants to offer their app on the web, they have literally no choice but to write software using that stack. Many times the choice between "use web-stack" and "use proper UI framework" boils down to acceptability of slower and more painful distribution process. With web apps there is virtually no distribution process – users download app every time they want to use (because, of course, it makes sense, right?). But with other solutions, there is some sort of distribution process – like Apple/Google App Store or app repositories. Which makes app distribution more secure and efficient, but adds some pain to the process. If you want to reach as many users as possible, you need web, and that's how we all got locked in into writing apps using typesetting engine and pretending that it's okay.
- xigoi 2y ago
  > And also about the fact that if anyone wants to offer their app on the web, they have literally no choice but to write software using that stack. If you want to offer your app on Android, you have literally no choice but to use Android Studio. Is that really better? At least it’s possible to write HTML on an old computer without running out of RAM.