In other breaking news: ) Earth still exists ) Human's breathe oxygen *) Cow's fart a lot Not to be a total arsehole, but I mean... uhh, what's the point of t

In other breaking news: ) Earth still exists ) Human's breathe oxygen *) Cow's fart a lot Not to be a total arsehole, but I mean... uhh, what's the point of this? If anything, it sounds like, from the copy, they want you to make websites but instead of calling it a "website" because that's un-cool? I don't get it. // Start of semi-related rant I would also like to call this statement in their opening paragraph complete non-sense and almost simple minded: "Static web architecture eases common web development headaches without introducing additional complexity" After many years of doing web development, I can see programming in Java, Obj-C, or .NET is worlds easier for application development. Instead of 27 different platforms (IE, Firefox, Chrome, Safari on different platforms) I have one-- the god damn operating system. Was this always the case? Nope, but it is now. Is it easier to write a single screen on the web using JS, HTML, and CSS? Sure, but the return is marginally decreasing as the application grows. More screens, more complexity, the more HTML/CSS/JS start to show their age. Web development becomes actually more complicated than writing a native application.