>"People" don't want to build anything; it's devs who want to do that. +1 for pedantry. Apparently devs aren't people, they are "people" (or is it the other wa

>"People" don't want to build anything; it's devs who want to do that. +1 for pedantry. Apparently devs aren't people, they are "people" (or is it the other way around). >People want to do all kinds of things on the web. That's right. They want to do all kinds of things on it. They want to hang out on facebook, check gmail, keep track of twitter feed, write documents in google docs, and upload to flickr. All those "web sites" really stretch the original vision of what HTML was supposed to be, and what the author is arguing for. They are all JavaScript heavy not because Devs love JavaScript (it's a shitty language), but because it's the only way to provide a proper experience for the end-users. >We had the same debate with Flash. We didn't have the same 'debate', because there's no debate. End-users aren't complaining about the current state of the web. Devs aren't complaining either. There's no movement to push the web in the other direction. Users, developers and all major internet corporations are pretty much aligned. Most of the focus is on things like privacy, not on reducing the use of JavaScritpt. >There is no binary here, it's a continuum Actually I purposely used "application" because I wanted to reinforce the point that some things that run in the browser are applications, not pages, not marked up documents, applications. Furthermore those web applications may not necessarily require javascript - that's how they are written today, that's not how they were written yesterday. If you want to go into a debate as to what the difference between a 'web site' and a 'web app' is, I'd say there's a continuum there, but I focused on pure "web applications". >The kind of web app you're talking about is the kind of site that would require JS and the kind of site that the author would whitelist. Are you sure about that?