391–400 of 467 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure I had > 1024x768 graphics and have used nothing but Netscape/Seamonkey (because inertia) since the mid '90s.
Sadly, a lot of laptops come with only 1366x768 displays, 20 years later. What a lack of progress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How am I not engaging with your point? In response to a comment pointing out how we need to re-think web application development, you said: "The web is the first truly cross-platform development environment." ...and then talked a bit about how it's open (yeah, ok, sure), and then you said it's not really a good application development environment (obviously). I'm saying, your entire premise is wrong: it isn't an appl…
> That doesn't mean we can't change the paradigm, but to do that, we have to stop defending the current model. Here's the crux of our disagreement. You believe that the web is such a broken application platform that it is possible to convince enough vendors and people to get behind a better solution. However, I (despite your presumptuous implication that I'm a millenial), have been around long enough to know that wil…
"That's not to say that the web might not some be supplanted by something better..."
Whomever wrote the first paragraph of your comment should get in touch with the person who wrote the second paragraph.
OK, seriously, though, let's summarize:
1) Person says "web development sucks, here's why: $REASONS"
2) You reply: "it's the only truly cross-platform development environment ever"
3) I (and others) reply: "no, it really isn't. it isn't even a development environment, by any reasonable measure."
Now you're putting words in my mouth about convincing vendors and starting movements. I'm not trying to start a revolution here, just trying to counter the notion that we can't do any better than the pile of junk we've adopted. You don't have to love your captors!
I have no idea if someone will come up with a revolutionary, grand unified solution tomorrow, but I know that this process starts with the acknowledgement that what we have sucks, and that we have lots of examples of better solutions to work from. Hell...just having a well-defined set of 1995-era UI components defined as a standard would be a quantum leap forward in terms of application development.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a more radical departure is needed. It's about time to acknowledge that the web is increasingly being used to access full-blown applications more often than "webpages." Web browsers have more or less become mini operating systems, running elaborate virtual machines. There's way too much complexity for everyone involved — from web devs and browser devs to the users and the people who maintain the standards, th…
That sounds ambitious, interesting, and like a lot more work than keeping a webpage running. My first thought is "cross-platform nightmare". My second thought is that they'd have to rethink their expectations of continuous deployment/release and a/b testing. We're either looking at making individual pages maintain binaries for the platforms they support (implying support of only those platforms that make sense to the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe because I don't want a bloody app for every site that I browse? Apps of that sort are just dumb. And huge security risks.
Of course webpages would still be around and needed, and desired for more basic content, but by the time you want to offer something as complex or regularly used as Facebook or Twitter or Reddit or Soundcloud and so on, it'd be better as a native app, as the current native clients for each of those websites already prove. I mean the UI is undeniably smoother, and they can seamlessly hook into the OS notifications sys…
And there's the problem. I don't use any of those four sites regularly, but I have visited all of them. Hyperlinks provide for that, and they (a) don't exist or at best would be awkward in a native app (not that webapps handle them well to begin with, though all of the above do allow for them at least) and (b) work between apps, platforms, and what-have-you. If I got a link to some image, <160 character sentence, comment thread, or song and was prompted to download an app, I would probably not view that content instead.
I'm skeptical that developers talking to each other about how bad web bloat is will change anything. They will still face the same incentives in terms of ad revenue, costs of optimization, etc. Here's a random idea that might have more potential: create an adblocker browser plugin that also colors URLs based on how slow they are expected to load, e.g., smoothly from blue to red. The scores could be centrally calculat…
Something that would be more effective is if Google began factoring page load speeds in their rankings just like they did for mobile optimization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Magic! We could even have standardized links between the apps, and companies that specialize in finding content no matter what app it's in. I think you're on to something...it could be huge... Heh.
> I think you're on to something...it could be huge... Heh. Could be. Sad that it isn't. Think how awesome it would be if app developers actually cared about interoperability instead of trying to grab the whole pie for themselves while giving you a hefty dose of ads in return. This is mostly the fault of developers, but the platform itself could help a lot if it was more end-user programmable. You'd have at least a c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The downvotes are because he is not engaging with my point. Never did I say the web is a proper application development environment. My point was that you can't create a proper application development environment that is both an open and defacto standard the way the web is.
How am I not engaging with your point? In response to a comment pointing out how we need to re-think web application development, you said: "The web is the first truly cross-platform development environment." ...and then talked a bit about how it's open (yeah, ok, sure), and then you said it's not really a good application development environment (obviously). I'm saying, your entire premise is wrong: it isn't an appl…
A common defensive mechanism among people with outdated skills is to try to delegitimize new frameworks and technologies in the hopes of convincing the broader community not to use things they don't know.
I'm inferring this from your arguments being driven by analogies and insinuations rather than concrete critique. It's not my intention to attack you personally, but an aggressively dismissive attitude towards unfamiliar concepts should be properly contextualized.
As for React, isn't it more likely that you don't know React very well, have never looked at its internals, and in general don't feel like you have the time or ability to learn much about modern web development?
If you build a few projects with React and still dislike it, good! Your critiques will be a lot more valid and useful at that point, whereas right now...yeah.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How am I not engaging with your point? In response to a comment pointing out how we need to re-think web application development, you said: "The web is the first truly cross-platform development environment." ...and then talked a bit about how it's open (yeah, ok, sure), and then you said it's not really a good application development environment (obviously). I'm saying, your entire premise is wrong: it isn't an appl…
> That doesn't mean we can't change the paradigm, but to do that, we have to stop defending the current model. Here's the crux of our disagreement. You believe that the web is such a broken application platform that it is possible to convince enough vendors and people to get behind a better solution. However, I (despite your presumptuous implication that I'm a millenial), have been around long enough to know that wil…