10 ms·

We need a break. We need an opportunity to learn to the features we already have responsibly — without tools! Also, we need the time for a fundamental conversat

We need a break. We need an opportunity to learn to the features we already have responsibly — without tools! Also, we need the time for a fundamental conversation about where we want to push the web forward to. How about this.. YOU take a break. Stop trying to keep up with every little new thing that comes out. Wait a while. And you'll get exactly what you want. The tools that it turns out were a bad idea will die. And those that are good will thrive. And you'll get more time to learn the actually useful ones... and you'll get to learn from the mistakes others made early on. Yes, you'll be a bit behind.. but you're apparently already ok with that anyway.

ams6110 11y ago
I do this. I don't even really think about anything new until others have put it through a shakedown for at least a year. Choose your tools and frameworks judiciously, learn them well, and you will be much better off (and less stressed) than the folks who are continually chasing the latest thing.
mrspeaker 11y ago
This works for the latest JavaScript framework, but is a lot more problematic when it comes to jamming fads into the browser: we have to support them, and work around them for a long long time.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - hueving 11y ago
    Lots more than browser devs get hit by this. Crawler developers, screen-reader devs, browser plugin devs, mobile app devs, etc.
bjt 11y ago
This is the part that feels the most misguided to me: > a fundamental conversation about where we want to push the web forward to. There's no such thing as a "conversation" between the billions of people with a stake in this. Or even the few million people building websites and web apps. Or even the few thousand people building web browsers. Attempting to have that conversation just means open-ended delay. There will never be a clear consensus on where we want to push the web forward to. And that's OK.
- backtoyoujim 11y ago
  "Attempting to have that conversation just means open-ended delay." Isn't that the point? To slow this down because perhaps the people driving "innovation" are insulated from its disruptive effects?
- myderpyaccount 11y ago
  > There's no such thing as a "conversation" between the billions of people with a stake in this. Well, not exactly. That's how you wind up getting diversity of fields. People have different interests and different visions of the future. People understand computation differently. People approach the same problem in different ways. Through conversation and code, the web is weaved together. My thought is this. Put up or shut up. Why waste your time under a forum about a developer who wants more stable, secure software? Surely this view provides some benefit to the community, lest we prefer languages that compute incorrectly with regularity and a proliferation of vulnerabilities across every domain that has been coupled with technology.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  But people are conversing about it in browser dev groups and in standards meetings (WAI, WHATWG and whatever) and such; they're just doing it with a focus to their own ends rather than the ends of the more general user population of the web.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    As it should be, those who do the work get to make the decisions, that's how it works. People work for their own self interest, not for the benefit of the "general user population".
    - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
      >People work for their own self interest // Altruism; not exclusively, not always, not all people work only for their own benefit. Many, I warrant, consider that something as game-changing and all pervading as the web (and internet in general) should be tailored as much as we're able to the greater good of all people. Others want to make it illegal to collect rain for drinking in drought zones so they can get a better financial profit selling bottled water. And there's a whole scale in-between of course.
golergka 11y ago
By the way, one of the best websites I know, c2.com (I don't know anything about this consulting company, but these pages constantly come up in search results and offer best advice possible), manages to deliver the best content with HTMLs that mostly can be read in Mosaic and Lynx.
- parasubvert 11y ago
  That's the original Wiki, by Ward Cunningham. He invented it. Currently read only, unfortunately, due to a hack last year. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiWikiWeb http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiWikiWeb
  - immibis 11y ago
    Yeah, and now Ward's killing it in favour of some Web 2.0 thing I can't even begin to understand how to use.
- patmcguire 11y ago
  Perhaps the most Web 1.0 place on the Internet, which I mean as a compliment. I don't quite get the revision/comment setup, but it's great.
- agumonkey 11y ago
  Another proof that this whole web debate isn't going anywhere useful. Lot's of old places are full of amazing content. Maybe restricted communications channels allows for smarter conversations ? You have to tailor and curate the ideas. Mailing lists for instance are still used by real developers everywhere, IRC. Add a few blogs and old boards and you get 80%.
pbhjpbhj 11y ago
Do you know PPK and his work? He's been at the cutting edge of web-standards and implementations for at least 12 years if my memory serves me correctly. >And you'll get exactly what you want. // If he wants to avoid the web being badly negatively effected by short term views of current browser companies and standards bodies then he won't get what he wants by sticking his head in the sand and ignoring the direction he sees things going. If this were the writing of a small time web-dev (like myself) then I think your comment would work; but I'm assuming PPK is coming from a position of experience that's given him an almost unique overview of the direction of browser and standards development vs. the historic "feel" and integrity of the web. PPK is doing the equivalent of saying "let's stop and ask for directions [on our car journey]" and you're saying "no, let's just keep driving I'm sure we'll get to where we want to go". He's up against it as, to my mind, cautious development doesn't serve the needs of corporations and so won't happen. >"We’re pushing the web forward to emulate native more and more, but we can’t out-native native." (OP) // I find it funny that web pages are trying to be native apps and many mobile apps are shipping when they're ostensibly just web pages. tl;dr I think the OP has more to say, and that it's more important, than you're giving credit for.
- tedunangst 11y ago
  > I find it funny that web pages are trying to be native apps and many mobile apps are shipping when they're ostensibly just web pages. Which provides some insight into what's missing from the web. It's almost good enough for most companies. They just need a little something extra so that they can "own the experience." But soon the browsers will catch up and then websites will be able to own your experience, too.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Perhaps the choice lies outside of the actual functionality of the web itself but instead in the OS and browsers. Consider someone who ships their iOS app that is basically just a web page instead of using a web page. For doing this, they get two benefits that are not really related to the web. One, they get an icon to tab from the home screen to launch their app, instead of going to Safari and then going to their webpage. Two, they get to avoid having to go through Safari, which one could speculate is something Apple was already wanting them to avoid as it allows Apple to create a better walled garden (not to say Apple is the only one who does this, I'm only pointing them out because I used iOS in my example). How would a change/upgrade in web standards allow for the web app to compete with the iOS app housing a web app on these two fronts?
rimantas 11y ago
Imagine that you and your friend are hiking together. After a while your friend says: you know what, I think we are going in the wrong direction. You tell him something similar to your comment. And yes, he waits. And while he waits you get deep into the swamp. The only think you learn is maybe how to hike in a swamp. Yes he left behind. But being left behind while others run deep into the swamp is not the worst that could happen. Alas, everyone lost some time.
mschuster91 11y ago
> The tools that it turns out were a bad idea will die. And those that are good will thrive. We saw that happen with WebSQL vs IndexedDB. A well-designed API (with a syntax every decent webdev knows) vs a bullshit spec (ohai callback hell FOR DOING A SIMPLE FUCKING SORT AND GROUP), and the bullshit won.
- tracker1 11y ago
  All because Microsoft wouldn't break down and embed SQLite into their browser like everyone else did for WebSQL. It's actually really disappointing. IndexedDB could be built on top of WebSQL as a shim... you can't really do the reverse so easily. It's really disappointing... WebSQL/SQLite with a template string builder interface would be amazing. (I know it's an ES6 thing). I will say, that I do want what's on deck for ES6/7 (2015/2016) to make it into the browsers... async/await is such a useful feature.
  - mschuster91 11y ago
    Hmm... would it be possible, using Promises, to create a sorta-shim, you give it a SQL query and a callback function. The shim does asynchronously all the stuff a DB engine does (most people are going to use "SELECT cola,colb,colc FROM x WHERE foo=bar and baz=quux ORDER BY cola ASC GROUP BY colb" and nothing more complex anyway), then tracks all the stuff it needs to do in its own promise tracker. Once all is done, it assembles the returned row(s), stores them and calls the callback. The biggest problem I see is locking as all the crap is async so you'd need some sort of locking and query ordering to maintain data consistency.
    - tracker1 11y ago
      If you don't really need true locking pessimism it's more possible... There are actual SQL engines in JS though. Using a single queue to run queries through would be relatively easy to do... a stage 1 analysis of what collections you need to query could then push the query into one of several queues for pipeline requests. It would be interesting, but I don't mind IndexDB (or localStorage for that matter) enough to really bother with it.
coldtea 11y ago
>How about this.. YOU take a break. Stop trying to keep up with every little new thing that comes out. Wait a while. And you'll get exactly what you want. The tools that it turns out were a bad idea will die. And those that are good will thrive. Yeah, only hasn't ever happened. We still suffer from BS tools and ideas from late nineties, and we're only mostly piling stuff on top of it (some good and loads of crap).
bcheung 11y ago
While it is probably true that we "can't out-native native" the argument is irrelevant if you consider other more important factors. The approval process is burdensome and discriminatory if you want to release an app that competes with Apple or goes against one of their policies. For developers that want to create great mobile user interfaces and Apple won't approve the app, where does that leave us? No user experience or a sub-optimal user experience. If we do what PPK is proposing that leaves us with poor user experiences and maybe no user experience if we need a feature that is only available on native. Having a web platform that can compete with native apps mitigates the problems and abuses common with companies that have monopolies. If they have competition they can't screw over their developers and user. 30% is an onerous tax. It's one thing if that is a marketing or referral fee. But if a developer is creating an app to use with their own platform / service they are most likely going to provide a download link from their site. They don't need any promotion or directory. Apple isn't providing any value. They are creating an artificial barrier and blocking other companies from serving their users just so they can get a cut of the action. I've been using ES6 functionality like "yield" in my backend node.js code and am loving it. I would love to have that ability in the browser without having to go through a transpiler. I want the web to keep pushing forward so that I can deliver better user experiences. The argument that we need time to catch up and learn the technology seems ridiculous to me considering that the alternative is learning 3 platforms (web, iOS, Android) vs just 1 platform (web). A lot of developers don't want to have to develop for 3 different platforms. If you can't keep up with all the technologies then become a monk and leave the technology world behind. Nobody has been able to keep up with all the latest technology trends. Deal with it. Those that want to deliver better user experiences will invest the time to learn the new technologies. Don't hold back progress just because you have a defeatist, why me, it's not fair, slow down guys, I can't keep up attitude.
beedogs 11y ago
This seems like just a bunch of excuses to keep breaking the web.

ams6110 11y ago

I do this. I don't even really think about anything new until others have put it through a shakedown for at least a year. Choose your tools and frameworks judiciously, learn them well, and you will be much better off (and less stressed) than the folks who are continually chasing the latest thing.

mrspeaker 11y ago

This works for the latest JavaScript framework, but is a lot more problematic when it comes to jamming fads into the browser: we have to support them, and work around them for a long long time.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- hueving 11y ago
  Lots more than browser devs get hit by this. Crawler developers, screen-reader devs, browser plugin devs, mobile app devs, etc.

bjt 11y ago

This is the part that feels the most misguided to me: > a fundamental conversation about where we want to push the web forward to. There's no such thing as a "conversation" between the billions of people with a stake in this. Or even the few million people building websites and web apps. Or even the few thousand people building web browsers. Attempting to have that conversation just means open-ended delay. There will never be a clear consensus on where we want to push the web forward to. And that's OK.

backtoyoujim 11y ago
"Attempting to have that conversation just means open-ended delay." Isn't that the point? To slow this down because perhaps the people driving "innovation" are insulated from its disruptive effects?
myderpyaccount 11y ago
> There's no such thing as a "conversation" between the billions of people with a stake in this. Well, not exactly. That's how you wind up getting diversity of fields. People have different interests and different visions of the future. People understand computation differently. People approach the same problem in different ways. Through conversation and code, the web is weaved together. My thought is this. Put up or shut up. Why waste your time under a forum about a developer who wants more stable, secure software? Surely this view provides some benefit to the community, lest we prefer languages that compute incorrectly with regularity and a proliferation of vulnerabilities across every domain that has been coupled with technology.
pbhjpbhj 11y ago
But people are conversing about it in browser dev groups and in standards meetings (WAI, WHATWG and whatever) and such; they're just doing it with a focus to their own ends rather than the ends of the more general user population of the web.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  As it should be, those who do the work get to make the decisions, that's how it works. People work for their own self interest, not for the benefit of the "general user population".
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    >People work for their own self interest // Altruism; not exclusively, not always, not all people work only for their own benefit. Many, I warrant, consider that something as game-changing and all pervading as the web (and internet in general) should be tailored as much as we're able to the greater good of all people. Others want to make it illegal to collect rain for drinking in drought zones so they can get a better financial profit selling bottled water. And there's a whole scale in-between of course.

golergka 11y ago

By the way, one of the best websites I know, c2.com (I don't know anything about this consulting company, but these pages constantly come up in search results and offer best advice possible), manages to deliver the best content with HTMLs that mostly can be read in Mosaic and Lynx.

parasubvert 11y ago
That's the original Wiki, by Ward Cunningham. He invented it. Currently read only, unfortunately, due to a hack last year. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiWikiWeb http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiWikiWeb
- immibis 11y ago
  Yeah, and now Ward's killing it in favour of some Web 2.0 thing I can't even begin to understand how to use.
patmcguire 11y ago
Perhaps the most Web 1.0 place on the Internet, which I mean as a compliment. I don't quite get the revision/comment setup, but it's great.
agumonkey 11y ago
Another proof that this whole web debate isn't going anywhere useful. Lot's of old places are full of amazing content. Maybe restricted communications channels allows for smarter conversations ? You have to tailor and curate the ideas. Mailing lists for instance are still used by real developers everywhere, IRC. Add a few blogs and old boards and you get 80%.

pbhjpbhj 11y ago

Do you know PPK and his work? He's been at the cutting edge of web-standards and implementations for at least 12 years if my memory serves me correctly. >And you'll get exactly what you want. // If he wants to avoid the web being badly negatively effected by short term views of current browser companies and standards bodies then he won't get what he wants by sticking his head in the sand and ignoring the direction he sees things going. If this were the writing of a small time web-dev (like myself) then I think your comment would work; but I'm assuming PPK is coming from a position of experience that's given him an almost unique overview of the direction of browser and standards development vs. the historic "feel" and integrity of the web. PPK is doing the equivalent of saying "let's stop and ask for directions [on our car journey]" and you're saying "no, let's just keep driving I'm sure we'll get to where we want to go". He's up against it as, to my mind, cautious development doesn't serve the needs of corporations and so won't happen. >"We’re pushing the web forward to emulate native more and more, but we can’t out-native native." (OP) // I find it funny that web pages are trying to be native apps and many mobile apps are shipping when they're ostensibly just web pages. tl;dr I think the OP has more to say, and that it's more important, than you're giving credit for.

tedunangst 11y ago
> I find it funny that web pages are trying to be native apps and many mobile apps are shipping when they're ostensibly just web pages. Which provides some insight into what's missing from the web. It's almost good enough for most companies. They just need a little something extra so that they can "own the experience." But soon the browsers will catch up and then websites will be able to own your experience, too.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Perhaps the choice lies outside of the actual functionality of the web itself but instead in the OS and browsers. Consider someone who ships their iOS app that is basically just a web page instead of using a web page. For doing this, they get two benefits that are not really related to the web. One, they get an icon to tab from the home screen to launch their app, instead of going to Safari and then going to their webpage. Two, they get to avoid having to go through Safari, which one could speculate is something Apple was already wanting them to avoid as it allows Apple to create a better walled garden (not to say Apple is the only one who does this, I'm only pointing them out because I used iOS in my example). How would a change/upgrade in web standards allow for the web app to compete with the iOS app housing a web app on these two fronts?

rimantas 11y ago

Imagine that you and your friend are hiking together. After a while your friend says: you know what, I think we are going in the wrong direction. You tell him something similar to your comment. And yes, he waits. And while he waits you get deep into the swamp. The only think you learn is maybe how to hike in a swamp. Yes he left behind. But being left behind while others run deep into the swamp is not the worst that could happen. Alas, everyone lost some time.

mschuster91 11y ago

> The tools that it turns out were a bad idea will die. And those that are good will thrive. We saw that happen with WebSQL vs IndexedDB. A well-designed API (with a syntax every decent webdev knows) vs a bullshit spec (ohai callback hell FOR DOING A SIMPLE FUCKING SORT AND GROUP), and the bullshit won.

tracker1 11y ago
All because Microsoft wouldn't break down and embed SQLite into their browser like everyone else did for WebSQL. It's actually really disappointing. IndexedDB could be built on top of WebSQL as a shim... you can't really do the reverse so easily. It's really disappointing... WebSQL/SQLite with a template string builder interface would be amazing. (I know it's an ES6 thing). I will say, that I do want what's on deck for ES6/7 (2015/2016) to make it into the browsers... async/await is such a useful feature.
- mschuster91 11y ago
  Hmm... would it be possible, using Promises, to create a sorta-shim, you give it a SQL query and a callback function. The shim does asynchronously all the stuff a DB engine does (most people are going to use "SELECT cola,colb,colc FROM x WHERE foo=bar and baz=quux ORDER BY cola ASC GROUP BY colb" and nothing more complex anyway), then tracks all the stuff it needs to do in its own promise tracker. Once all is done, it assembles the returned row(s), stores them and calls the callback. The biggest problem I see is locking as all the crap is async so you'd need some sort of locking and query ordering to maintain data consistency.
  - tracker1 11y ago
    If you don't really need true locking pessimism it's more possible... There are actual SQL engines in JS though. Using a single queue to run queries through would be relatively easy to do... a stage 1 analysis of what collections you need to query could then push the query into one of several queues for pipeline requests. It would be interesting, but I don't mind IndexDB (or localStorage for that matter) enough to really bother with it.

coldtea 11y ago

>How about this.. YOU take a break. Stop trying to keep up with every little new thing that comes out. Wait a while. And you'll get exactly what you want. The tools that it turns out were a bad idea will die. And those that are good will thrive. Yeah, only hasn't ever happened. We still suffer from BS tools and ideas from late nineties, and we're only mostly piling stuff on top of it (some good and loads of crap).

bcheung 11y ago

While it is probably true that we "can't out-native native" the argument is irrelevant if you consider other more important factors. The approval process is burdensome and discriminatory if you want to release an app that competes with Apple or goes against one of their policies. For developers that want to create great mobile user interfaces and Apple won't approve the app, where does that leave us? No user experience or a sub-optimal user experience. If we do what PPK is proposing that leaves us with poor user experiences and maybe no user experience if we need a feature that is only available on native. Having a web platform that can compete with native apps mitigates the problems and abuses common with companies that have monopolies. If they have competition they can't screw over their developers and user. 30% is an onerous tax. It's one thing if that is a marketing or referral fee. But if a developer is creating an app to use with their own platform / service they are most likely going to provide a download link from their site. They don't need any promotion or directory. Apple isn't providing any value. They are creating an artificial barrier and blocking other companies from serving their users just so they can get a cut of the action. I've been using ES6 functionality like "yield" in my backend node.js code and am loving it. I would love to have that ability in the browser without having to go through a transpiler. I want the web to keep pushing forward so that I can deliver better user experiences. The argument that we need time to catch up and learn the technology seems ridiculous to me considering that the alternative is learning 3 platforms (web, iOS, Android) vs just 1 platform (web). A lot of developers don't want to have to develop for 3 different platforms. If you can't keep up with all the technologies then become a monk and leave the technology world behind. Nobody has been able to keep up with all the latest technology trends. Deal with it. Those that want to deliver better user experiences will invest the time to learn the new technologies. Don't hold back progress just because you have a defeatist, why me, it's not fair, slow down guys, I can't keep up attitude.

beedogs 11y ago

This seems like just a bunch of excuses to keep breaking the web.