Live data from Hacker News

Internet Explorer is evil (1996)

toastytech.com

21–30 of 85 posts

Re: Internet Explorer is evil (1996)

#21

"In conclusion, people are finally beginning to understand the hard way: Web Browsers really make poor client application runtimes for all but the most basic of things. ActiveX is a security nightmare and counter to making cross-platform applications. The web is a constantly changing and evolving standard separate from Microsoft or any specific operating system, as such implementing an application for just one specif…

In fairness, "DHTML" / programmatic manipulation of the DOM was just invented in 1996 and eventually ended up being the envisioned successful client application runtime implemented across browser versions and runtimes. Now, of course with the Chromium hegemony we have an old-is-new-again set of problems on the web, but I do think that for a time, people _did_ listen to this advice and stopped writing applications for _only_ IE4/5/6.

As an aside, I do still think that if a cross-platform application framework that were built from the ground-up for secure Internet-delivered application use had ever materialized in a robust way, we would probably be in a better place as an industry. But, that didn't happen, and it certainly wasn't for lack of trying - see Java Applets/Web Start/JavaFX, Silverlight, and of course the elephant in the room Flash / Flex.

Instead, HTML evolved into dynamic HTML / "the DOM" / HTML5, and each layer of abstraction built there was "good enough" to dethrone all challengers - in no small part due to, again, people heeding the advice of the OP quote and not implementing browser-locked software.

Re: Internet Explorer is evil (1996)

#25

"In conclusion, people are finally beginning to understand the hard way: Web Browsers really make poor client application runtimes for all but the most basic of things. ActiveX is a security nightmare and counter to making cross-platform applications. The web is a constantly changing and evolving standard separate from Microsoft or any specific operating system, as such implementing an application for just one specif…

But nobody chose the alternatives. Java or single operating system applications were the alternative. Where would we be today if you couldn't swap between Mac and Windows laptops -- or worse, had to have both -- because you depended on applications that had no common operating system? The reason we can use linux as a desktop is because of web applications. Now, it's possible that we could have ended up with Web Start…

It's interesting to me you're getting downvoted which signifies that people don't think you're adding to the conversation

Is this a form of denialism by hardcore "I-Hate-Javascript"ers? I would like to add that I absolutely hate the subset of modern websites that choose to be slow, but I think the parent is completely right. If we keep making it hard to use useful applications across platforms, then we're going to continue to see pushes toward the lowest common denominator that consumer computers can run. Yes, yes, I know techies like you and I believe installing stuff is trivial if you spend even just a little amount of time, but _this doesn't matter to average users_

It's a nightmare even installing Python, Ruby on Rails packages properly without juggling a million virtual environments, and those are supposed to be tools that you can run with a single CLI command and it gives you debugging information if things go wrong. It's a bit much to think that average users can survive without any of the tools or knowledge we have, being locked in a stupid GUI, and at the rate that we encounter defective software (seems like I encounter bugs more frequently as time goes on).

Now we are definitely going to add ARM complexity into the mix because what Apple pushed (M1) is just too good and everyone else is jumping on board for it

Regarding the comment about consumer-Linux, I feel less strongly on your point about web applications being the killer reason why Linux desktop users exist. Anyone using Linux desktop is almost certainly a tech-hacker to begin with and isn't necessarily tied to web applications as their go-to reason, but it certainly helps surviving with it. There are tons of reasons to use Linux desktop with no relation to web, but for market share, it's going to need consumer applications bordering on exclusivity that makes Linux first-priority and dumps support for macOS/Windows. Many Windows users don't want to switch to macOS or Linux because of gaming

Windows games kept me tied to the platform until my life became more focused on software. I only left Windows entirely after I learned that programming was a first-class citizen on Linux and macOS. Yes, you can program on Windows, but making software and using other people's software is more enjoyable elsewhere. So to wrap up this example, what can we learn about this? Well I knew life/job functions would be easier if I replaced Windows, but me doing software is coincidental. Give people a reason to use Linux. Make their lives easier, somehow, and make it clear that it will only happen if they leave their current platform. Otherwise you start coming up with systems like Windows Subsystem for Linux which... I'm not entirely sure why it exists.

I think the oft-repeated ire for modern web does not add anything at this point without understanding that there are good reasons people prefer to use web applications

Or, rather, web applications /are/ the common, universal cross-platform applications that we theorized, just that it arrived in less ideal ways

Re: Internet Explorer is evil (1996)

#26

Yes, the Redmond Middle School Science project called Internet Explorer, now in the dumpster of history where it always belonged, was evil. Its over-engineered idiocy (monikers? apartment threading? quirks mode? wtf?) slowed down the development of good internet applications by decades, and caused tens of thousands of lost developer and tester hours that we can never get back. Gates was too greedy to understand why i…

> quirks mode?

Quirks mode was a necessary measure to ensure backwards compatibility for a majority of websites at the time (circa 2000 - this was IE5).

If they had switched every website to standards mode, most of the internet at the time would have appeared broken, and people would have blamed Microsoft, not the websites.

(To be fair, IE5 through IE7 had a very broken standards mode, but it was much less broken than quirks mode.)

Re: Internet Explorer is evil (1996)

#28

"In conclusion, people are finally beginning to understand the hard way: Web Browsers really make poor client application runtimes for all but the most basic of things. ActiveX is a security nightmare and counter to making cross-platform applications. The web is a constantly changing and evolving standard separate from Microsoft or any specific operating system, as such implementing an application for just one specif…

But nobody chose the alternatives. Java or single operating system applications were the alternative. Where would we be today if you couldn't swap between Mac and Windows laptops -- or worse, had to have both -- because you depended on applications that had no common operating system? The reason we can use linux as a desktop is because of web applications. Now, it's possible that we could have ended up with Web Start…

I think the answer would have been for Java desktop apps to take off. I think if we had had a more diverse desktop landscape in the late 90s / early 2000s Java desktop apps would have won. As it was that was peak Windows and Java desktop apps were never given the time they needed to mature since the cross platform pitch was at its least compelling. The browser pretty much won because it was able to unseat the Windows hegemony without directly attacking Windows the way any of the alternative OSes had to do.

Sadly here we are now with bigger computers, better performing JVMs, great Java dev tools, and still losing to the browser due to massive inertia.

Re: Internet Explorer is evil (1996)

#29

Yes, the Redmond Middle School Science project called Internet Explorer, now in the dumpster of history where it always belonged, was evil. Its over-engineered idiocy (monikers? apartment threading? quirks mode? wtf?) slowed down the development of good internet applications by decades, and caused tens of thousands of lost developer and tester hours that we can never get back. Gates was too greedy to understand why i…

At that time there were basically 3 browsers to choose from. IE, Netscape, and in some particular cases Mosaic (which no one really did anymore).

Out of those 3 one did not crash as much, was faster, and was already installed. Before Firefox, Netscape would crash if you looked at it wrong.

Netscape started off decent but quickly devolved into something just as bad of a mess as IE.

That was our choices as a consumer. So we worked with what we had.

It was not until Firefox came along and showed everyone 'hey there is a better way' that anything happened. Even that took a few years.

Re: Internet Explorer is evil (1996)

#30

"In conclusion, people are finally beginning to understand the hard way: Web Browsers really make poor client application runtimes for all but the most basic of things. ActiveX is a security nightmare and counter to making cross-platform applications. The web is a constantly changing and evolving standard separate from Microsoft or any specific operating system, as such implementing an application for just one specif…

But nobody chose the alternatives. Java or single operating system applications were the alternative. Where would we be today if you couldn't swap between Mac and Windows laptops -- or worse, had to have both -- because you depended on applications that had no common operating system? The reason we can use linux as a desktop is because of web applications. Now, it's possible that we could have ended up with Web Start…

Was there ever a JVM web browser?
Post reply on HN