3 ms·
It's almost as if you've drunk your own kool-aid. >And they all fell by the wayside. They lacked in features. They lacked in agility. No, no and no. The web "
by hackinthebochs 14y ago
It's almost as if you've drunk your own kool-aid.
>And they all fell by the wayside. They lacked in features. They lacked in agility.
No, no and no. The web "won" because its simple and the lowest common denominator was good enough for most people. The web has always been far behind in terms of features and agility (depending on what you're trying to optimize when it comes to agility). The web won solely because it was "open" and every company had a stake in ensuring no one company could sustain their monopoly. The web sucks and it did not win on its merits.
- imissmyjuno 14y agoBut it has won nevertheless. The question then is what we are to do to move the web into the realm of applications. I don't have an answer, but one advantage mobile apps hold is UI standardization. There is no one right way to build an app for the web the way there is for Android or iOS. That's a problem for both the applications authors and users. Cappuccino attempted to solve that problem in a way that did not appeal to programmers, it seems. jQuery UI succeeded to a point, and now Bootstrap seems to be the framework of choice. Perhaps a widget-based UI framework that can target the desktop and mobile devices would make sense.
- MatthewPhillips 14y agoBeing ubiquitous is a merit.
- npsimons 14y agoWhich is one of the strongest selling points of Emacs and Vim. Ubiquitous doesn't equate to web based; there are plenty of native apps that are ubiquitous, and on top of that they don't require a constant network connection, or that the server is up. It also seems to me that if you have the source, you can get the software running just about anywhere.
- MatthewPhillips 14y agoI don't think we disagree. It's just that on the web ubiquity is free.