Live data from Hacker News

Web apps are better than no apps

molodtsov.me

1–10 of 199 posts

Re: Web apps are better than no apps

#2
> Such apps leverage the native platform’s interface, including windows, buttons, text areas, and everything else. They look right and familiar, and they behave this way.

Nope, they don't look familiar because they look different on every platform.

Give me consistency. If I buy a phone of some different brand (or use the family tablet which happens to be of a different brand), give me the same interface for each app as on the old phone.

Re: Web apps are better than no apps

#4
post #2

> Such apps leverage the native platform’s interface, including windows, buttons, text areas, and everything else. They look right and familiar, and they behave this way. Nope, they don't look familiar because they look different on every platform. Give me consistency. If I buy a phone of some different brand (or use the family tablet which happens to be of a different brand), give me the same interface for each app…

Most people use two platforms at most. Phone and PC, and these already look different because of the screen sizes and orientation.

And a web app look rarely like the most used desktop apps people are used to: Excel and Word

Re: Web apps are better than no apps

#5
post #2

> Such apps leverage the native platform’s interface, including windows, buttons, text areas, and everything else. They look right and familiar, and they behave this way. Nope, they don't look familiar because they look different on every platform. Give me consistency. If I buy a phone of some different brand (or use the family tablet which happens to be of a different brand), give me the same interface for each app…

To be fair a native iOS app will look the same on a new iPhone and same with android apps on a new android based phone.

Re: Web apps are better than no apps

#6
"and JavaScrip is an interpreted language, not a compiled one, so by default, it will be orders of magnitude slower than an app written in Swift, Rust, or C++."

This statement is misleading and false.

The distinction between "interpreted" and "compiled" isn't as clear-cut as it once was, especially in the context of modern languages and runtimes. However, when it comes to JavaScript, here's the general understanding:

-Interpreted: JavaScript is traditionally known as an interpreted language. This means that it is typically executed line by line, on-the-fly, without a preliminary compilation step to machine code. When web browsers first supported JavaScript, they essentially had interpreters that read and executed JavaScript code directly.

- Just-In-Time Compilation (JIT): Modern JavaScript engines like V8 (used in Chrome and Node.js), SpiderMonkey (used in Firefox), and Chakra (used in older versions of Microsoft Edge) use Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation to execute JavaScript code. With JIT, the JavaScript code is compiled into machine code just before it is executed, rather than being interpreted line by line. This approach can greatly improve performance because the machine code can be optimized for the current machine and can be executed much faster than interpreted code. So, in this sense, JavaScript is compiled at runtime. - Ahead-of-Time Compilation (AOT): There are also tools and technologies that allow you to compile JavaScript (or languages that transpile to JavaScript) "ahead of time" into machine code or other languages. Examples include the asm.js subset of JavaScript and WebAssembly (although WebAssembly isn't strictly JavaScript, it's a target for languages including C/C++ and Rust, among others).

Re: Web apps are better than no apps

#7
post #2

> Such apps leverage the native platform’s interface, including windows, buttons, text areas, and everything else. They look right and familiar, and they behave this way. Nope, they don't look familiar because they look different on every platform. Give me consistency. If I buy a phone of some different brand (or use the family tablet which happens to be of a different brand), give me the same interface for each app…

> Nope, they don't look familiar because they look different on every platform.

When I use an app, I don’t care what it looks like on somebody else’s phone, I care that it works the same as all the other apps on my phone.

> Give me consistency.

I want it to be consistent with all the other apps on my phone. I don’t care if it’s consistent with what’s running on somebody else’s phone.

Re: Web apps are better than no apps

#8
post #6

"and JavaScrip is an interpreted language, not a compiled one, so by default, it will be orders of magnitude slower than an app written in Swift, Rust, or C++." This statement is misleading and false. The distinction between "interpreted" and "compiled" isn't as clear-cut as it once was, especially in the context of modern languages and runtimes. However, when it comes to JavaScript, here's the general understanding:…

JITting alone will just make code slower. Even with many optimizations V8 eventually changed the "unoptimizing JIT" to an interpreter and now only JITs hot functions.

Re: Web apps are better than no apps

#9
Why deceptively package the javascript as an app when you can just put it on a website?

And what's that about notes taking 120 Mb, when Electron apps start at 3-400 Mb? Deceptively split into and Not to mention when you leave a chat app like Discord or Slack running and they keep instatiating those meme gifs forever, until you run out of ram.

Re: Web apps are better than no apps

#10
I hate to agree with this. Web is the best way to cram loads of features into a limited amount of dev time.

But still, whenever I use Teams, something like this happens: I click a button, nothing happens. I wait 10 seconds, because teams sometimes just needs a little longer. Nothing happens. I click the button again, it finally starts doing something. 5 seconds later, the thing I wanted appears.

And every time it happens, I die a little inside.

Post reply on HN