3 ms·

And open the door for high-performance, "write-once-run-anywhere" app development? Doubtful.

by namuol 12y ago

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
threeseed 12y ago
Sorry but I've not once used a HTML5 mobile app that ever convinced me it was the future of mobile development. In fact I far prefer companies serve me the full desktop site.
- untog 12y ago
  There's a chicken and egg problem here. The OP said "maybe this will allow us to make high performance apps" - given that it currently isn't possible, it isn't very surprising that you haven't seen any great, high performance apps. As for preferring the desktop sites, I'm afraid you are in a minority there.
  - Iftheshoefits 12y ago
    At what point do we stop calling it a "browser" and start calling it "a crippled, inflexible OS?" Relying on the browser as the operating environment in which to run any and every kind of application seems like a misguided a path to take. At some point the browser would have to become a kind of middle-man between the underlying OS and the end-user. There are very few good reasons to prefer "web apps" over native apps in any environment.
    - untog 12y ago
      I don't think anyone thinks that the browser is the perfect medium for something like this. But native development is still extremely costly, because every platform has it's own language and environment. If all the device manufacturers come together tomorrow and propose a cross-platform native programming platform then I'm all for it. Until then we'll rely on HTML.
      - Iftheshoefits 12y ago
        Every browser has its own quirks, as well, not to mention the magnitude of front-end technologies, back-end technologies, and everything in between. That is, developing for the web doesn't magically make these fragmentation issues you attribute to native development disappear. The cost is lower because the quality expectations are lower, both in terms of the end-product and the developers putting the product together. Put another way, if browsers become sophisticated enough to make them an appropriate medium for native-like apps that are more sophisticated than basic form data entry, what makes you think the cost to find competent, quality developers to write these apps to the level of quality expectation the end users will have won't be higher than it is today?
  - threeseed 12y ago
    No the problem is some people are simply detached from reality. We use apps like Photoshop, Word, Logic, Lightroom etc and not once has anyone come close to replicating the full experience within a web browser. Performance was never an issue then so why do people believe that once mobile browsers are faster that magically native apps will disappear ?
    - untog 12y ago
      why do people believe that once mobile browsers are faster that magically native apps will disappear I'm not sure that I've seen anyone suggest that. In any case, your point assumes that every app has the level of complexity that Photoshop, Lightroom etc. do and that's clearly not the case. The simple fact remains that mobile web performance is sub-par, so every mobile web experience you've seen so far has also been sub-par. That doesn't automatically mean that amazing mobile web performance will result in amazing mobile web apps, but without trying it we won't ever know.
    - Turing_Machine 12y ago
      "No the problem is some people are simply detached from reality." Everyone who uses Gmail and/or Google Docs is "detached from reality"? Okay.
- namuol 12y ago
  I'm confused. Was I talking about websites? I'm talking about developing cross platform mobile apps that utilize Apple's new proposed JS engine and WebGL. Apple's policies prevent apps from using their own JIT JS engine (i.e. V8). Outside of Safari, we are stuck using a non-JIT (non "Nitro") version of JavaScriptEngine. As a consequence, performance of JS outside of Safari is notably poor, and developers choose to go the "native" route for the sake of user experience. My point is that we can do better. Tossing WebGL into the mix wouldn't hurt.

And open the door for high-performance, "write-once-run-anywhere" app development? Doubtful.

by namuol 12y ago

And open the door for high-performance, "write-once-run-anywhere" app development? Doubtful.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

threeseed 12y ago

Sorry but I've not once used a HTML5 mobile app that ever convinced me it was the future of mobile development. In fact I far prefer companies serve me the full desktop site.

untog 12y ago
There's a chicken and egg problem here. The OP said "maybe this will allow us to make high performance apps" - given that it currently isn't possible, it isn't very surprising that you haven't seen any great, high performance apps. As for preferring the desktop sites, I'm afraid you are in a minority there.
- Iftheshoefits 12y ago
  At what point do we stop calling it a "browser" and start calling it "a crippled, inflexible OS?" Relying on the browser as the operating environment in which to run any and every kind of application seems like a misguided a path to take. At some point the browser would have to become a kind of middle-man between the underlying OS and the end-user. There are very few good reasons to prefer "web apps" over native apps in any environment.
  - untog 12y ago
    I don't think anyone thinks that the browser is the perfect medium for something like this. But native development is still extremely costly, because every platform has it's own language and environment. If all the device manufacturers come together tomorrow and propose a cross-platform native programming platform then I'm all for it. Until then we'll rely on HTML.
    - Iftheshoefits 12y ago
      Every browser has its own quirks, as well, not to mention the magnitude of front-end technologies, back-end technologies, and everything in between. That is, developing for the web doesn't magically make these fragmentation issues you attribute to native development disappear. The cost is lower because the quality expectations are lower, both in terms of the end-product and the developers putting the product together. Put another way, if browsers become sophisticated enough to make them an appropriate medium for native-like apps that are more sophisticated than basic form data entry, what makes you think the cost to find competent, quality developers to write these apps to the level of quality expectation the end users will have won't be higher than it is today?
- threeseed 12y ago
  No the problem is some people are simply detached from reality. We use apps like Photoshop, Word, Logic, Lightroom etc and not once has anyone come close to replicating the full experience within a web browser. Performance was never an issue then so why do people believe that once mobile browsers are faster that magically native apps will disappear ?
  - untog 12y ago
    why do people believe that once mobile browsers are faster that magically native apps will disappear I'm not sure that I've seen anyone suggest that. In any case, your point assumes that every app has the level of complexity that Photoshop, Lightroom etc. do and that's clearly not the case. The simple fact remains that mobile web performance is sub-par, so every mobile web experience you've seen so far has also been sub-par. That doesn't automatically mean that amazing mobile web performance will result in amazing mobile web apps, but without trying it we won't ever know.
  - Turing_Machine 12y ago
    "No the problem is some people are simply detached from reality." Everyone who uses Gmail and/or Google Docs is "detached from reality"? Okay.
namuol 12y ago
I'm confused. Was I talking about websites? I'm talking about developing cross platform mobile apps that utilize Apple's new proposed JS engine and WebGL. Apple's policies prevent apps from using their own JIT JS engine (i.e. V8). Outside of Safari, we are stuck using a non-JIT (non "Nitro") version of JavaScriptEngine. As a consequence, performance of JS outside of Safari is notably poor, and developers choose to go the "native" route for the sake of user experience. My point is that we can do better. Tossing WebGL into the mix wouldn't hurt.