Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

JSC loves ES6

webkit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 191 posts

Re: JSC loves ES6

#181

Post by floatboth »

rhinoceraptor wrote: post #169
floatboth wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fetch is supported in 10.1 (only 2 years after Firefox and Chromium!) They also already have Custom Elements v1 support, which is still in progress in Firefox. Timing and SRI they announced in this release (11). Service Workers is THE big gap, at this point it feels like they're actually very afraid of progressive web apps.

Wasn't the original idea for the iPhone to just use web apps in place of native?

That was the only way to add apps on iPhone OS 1.0, yes. Maybe they already had the App Store in mind and intended that as a stopgap, maybe the App Store was a reaction to jailbreaks and unofficial app development…

Re: JSC loves ES6

#182

Post by RodericDay »

omnimus wrote: post #135
alwillis wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iPhone is as successful as it is because of the perception of exclusivity - the best, newest apps will always be on iPhone first. That argument might have worked in back in the day when the iPhone was only available on AT&T but not in a world where the iPhone is available to more people than it ever has been before. The iPhone is perhaps the single most successful product ever, with over 1 billion sold: http://ww…

They dont want to deal with potentional problems (like battery drain) of the web platform. They can ignore it exactly because of their appstore and aura of exellence. But in real world i know so many people who dont have single app on iphone. They cant even imagine what simple link could give them. This could go very wrong way for apple. Imagine their excelent app devs start to make webap version of their apps. Many…

I'm one of those people. I don't like mucking around in the app-store, but I'd save a shortcut.

Re: JSC loves ES6

#183

Post by alwillis »

untog wrote: post #89
alwillis wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure Safari's features are intentionally crippled to keep their app ecosystem safe. See: web notifications. I’m pretty sure you'd be wrong. Apple announced that it's paid over $70 billion to app developers since the App Store became a thing in 2008 at today's WWDC keynote. This is the 30% Apple pays developers; so we're talking about $233 billion in gross transactions in less than 10 years. Apple is likely…

I think that's a shortsighted way to look at it. The iPhone is as successful as it is because of the perception of exclusivity - the best, newest apps will always be on iPhone first. Whether they are free or cost $100 each doesn't really matter that much - it still means Apple is the premier mobile device bar none. If they enabled more progressive webapp features, we'd start to see a lot more cross platform webapps.…

More proof that Apple isn’t crippling Safari--they announced full Web Assembly support today: https://webkit.org/blog/7691/webassembly/

Re: JSC loves ES6

#184

Post by alwillis »

untog wrote: post #89
alwillis wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure Safari's features are intentionally crippled to keep their app ecosystem safe. See: web notifications. I’m pretty sure you'd be wrong. Apple announced that it's paid over $70 billion to app developers since the App Store became a thing in 2008 at today's WWDC keynote. This is the 30% Apple pays developers; so we're talking about $233 billion in gross transactions in less than 10 years. Apple is likely…

I think that's a shortsighted way to look at it. The iPhone is as successful as it is because of the perception of exclusivity - the best, newest apps will always be on iPhone first. Whether they are free or cost $100 each doesn't really matter that much - it still means Apple is the premier mobile device bar none. If they enabled more progressive webapp features, we'd start to see a lot more cross platform webapps.…

Apple sure is putting in a lot of effort into ES5 performance for a platform that they’re supposedly crippling, not to mention smoking Chrome and Firefox in the process: https://webkit.org/blog/7536/jsc-loves-es6/

Re: JSC loves ES6

#185

Post by lern_too_spel »

pjmlp wrote: post #144
pfooti wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not entirely interested in relitigating a past I literally lived through. On the other hand, it is objectively true that there is only one browser platform for iOS. WebKit or nothing. If they actually supported chrome or Firefox instead of requiring them to be wrappers on webkit renderers, I would not have this complaint. Of course, the reason this isnt being taken up by anti-trust folks is that iOS doesn't domin…

I am so glad people can use another browser on ChromeOS, oh wait...

The difference is that it was technically infeasible to run another browser on ChromeOS, not policy infeasible. The technical infeasibility was recently removed. https://www.google.com/amp/www.techrepublic.com/google-amp/a...

Re: JSC loves ES6

#186

Post by pjmlp »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #185
pjmlp wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am so glad people can use another browser on ChromeOS, oh wait...

The difference is that it was technically infeasible to run another browser on ChromeOS, not policy infeasible. The technical infeasibility was recently removed. https://www.google.com/amp/www.techrepublic.com/google-amp/a...

No difference at all, in regards to the end user experience, but Google tends to have a green card from HN crowd.

Re: JSC loves ES6

#187

Post by Vinnl »

douche wrote: post #174
Vinnl wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't you just not use them if you don't want to, rather than wishing all other people wouldn't be able to use them either?

I can wish for something better. It's frustrating when I look at what desktop applications looked like and ran like ten or fifteen years ago, and how little has appreciably changed now, beside ballooning resource requirements.

I think what fooey meant (and what I agree with) is that what has changed now is that those apps exist at all: compared to ten or fifteen years ago, more apps are written now, they work better and on more platforms, and they are updated more frequently. Tools like Electron play a part in that.

Sure, we could wish that more effort would be spent while producing just as much. Realistically, though, that's not going to happen, and that's not due to people being lazy.

Re: JSC loves ES6

#188

Post by MuppetMaster42 »

mercer wrote: post #167
pfooti wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That works fine for your xhr data (and is what I do now), but is idiosyncratic to your library (note that detecting online state, responding to online state changes, etc all add complexity to this seemingly simple module, as does managing cache expiry). You can't do anything about your top level index.html file (or the main js and css assets) though. If the user starts offline the second time they use your app, there…

Maybe I'm confused, but provided I bootstrap the app every time by downloading a script that then downloads the big-ass app (that includes styling and whatnot) if necessary, I should be fine right? Or am I missing something? That said I do understand that avoiding this could be desirable.

Service workers are in a separate layer to your app code. They're in another thread, they're subject to different memory/storage rules, they have access to a few extra apis IIRC.

Service workers are designed to be run independently of your web page. I.e. Your service worker can run in the background and update your apps resource files (or even cached xhr data) when your website isn't open, so that it's ready when the user accesses your site.

This means your site goes from remotely delivered to locally served. Which reduces the load times to super low.

IMO it's also nice and clean because it lets you completely separate your app and network logic. Your web app itself can be built as if it is always online, and all the offline logic is in the separate code package in a separate thread.

Re: JSC loves ES6

#189

Post by lern_too_spel »

pjmlp wrote: post #186
lern_too_spel wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that it was technically infeasible to run another browser on ChromeOS, not policy infeasible. The technical infeasibility was recently removed. https://www.google.com/amp/www.techrepublic.com/google-amp/a...

No difference at all, in regards to the end user experience, but Google tends to have a green card from HN crowd.

If I really wanted to, I could have built another browser using PNaCl and run it and distributed it on ChromeOS even before it supported Android apps where users trivially have access to other browsers. That remains impossible on iDevices to this day.

If you can't see the difference, you are only deceiving yourself.

Re: JSC loves ES6

#190

Post by alwillis »

alwillis wrote: post #80
zajd wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure Safari's features are intentionally crippled to keep their app ecosystem safe. See: web notifications.

I'm pretty sure Safari's features are intentionally crippled to keep their app ecosystem safe. See: web notifications. I’m pretty sure you'd be wrong. Apple announced that it's paid over $70 billion to app developers since the App Store became a thing in 2008 at today's WWDC keynote. This is the 30% Apple pays developers; so we're talking about $233 billion in gross transactions in less than 10 years. Apple is likely…

Here's a link to a comment from a WebKit engineer responding to the notion that Apple deliberately omits features from Safari. Short answer--they don't: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14509746
Post reply on HN