2 ms·
> And even the largest selling point of the entire stack - develop once, run everywhere - is far less true then many like to admit. But it's more true than any
by dasil003 12y ago
> And even the largest selling point of the entire stack - develop once, run everywhere - is far less true then many like to admit.
But it's more true than any platform in the history of mankind.
I've noticed a resounding chorus of seasoned developers railing against the web as application platform for over a decade now. But their complaints are always comparing an open standards based platform against some proprietary platform or GUI toolkit. Of course Microsoft or Apple are going to put together a more cohesive app SDK than the W3C. But neither of those behemoths has ever approached the ubiquity of the web, not by a long shot, because every single platform they target has to be developed by them. The web is available everywhere, and if a new corporate behemoth builds the next great platform, they must include web support because that is now considered baseline functionality. I'm surprised more old-school developers don't recognize what an amazing accomplishment this is.
So yeah, JavaScript is terrible, but it's standing on the most ubiquitous platform ever created. And you can't build that platform by thinking to yourself, "what would the ultimate cross-platform application platform look like?" It doesn't work that way. The web won because of it's braindead simplicity, that was the thin edge of the wedge. You see being document-based as a weakness, but that's its strength, because documents have a higher utility-to-complexity ratio than apps. Even today when all us software elites are thinking about javascript-based apps, the web is still dominated by a massive substrate of documents, and many apps exist only to manipulate documents, so being document-based and allowing anyone to edit documents was the killer feature of the web. How many network application protocols/platforms/toolkits have been invented since the birth of the internet? Certainly a lot more than anyone will ever be aware of because they didn't have the means to gain traction.
Systems on the scale of the web don't—can't—happen by design. Instead of complaining how terrible it is we need to look at what incremental improvements are possible. Over time this leads to real evolution, and yeah it's slower than we'd like, but there's no other way forward without chucking out all the users with the bathwater and becoming irrelevant.
- danbruc 12y agoUnfortunately I have to leave, but I agree with most of your comment. I just believe we should not give up because it seems very hard to come up with and get adoption for a better solution. Continuously patching and bending two decades old technology for another decade or two does not seem a sustainable solution to me. Not that old technology is necessarily bad, SQL is a great counterexample, but unfortunately not everything out there got created with so much thought put into it.
- discreteevent 12y agoAgreed about the utility of documents. But that's not the issue. The issue is contorting a document to make it into an application. Mobile app devs don't have to deal with this and the benefits are many. Let documents be documents and apps be apps. I'd like to see a webgl based app toolkit that works like a mobile app toolkit and performs as well as a mobile app. I don't think it will happen though because so many devs have now been raised on html, css and js. They like it.