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

Software in 2014

tbray.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 265 posts

Re: Software in 2014

#111

Post by weland »

lsh wrote: post #102
weland wrote: post #62

I think this paints a rather meagre picture of software development in 2014: > More or less everything is expected to talk HTTP, and it’s really easy to make things talk HTTP. A lot of things that shouldn't talk HTTP are expected to just because there's an army of programmers who don't know better. Also, it's actually hard to make things talk HTTP, partly due to HTTP itself. However, much of this complexity is hidden…

oh my god, you're my new best friend. I was despairing of finding any opinion on HN that wasn't so mired in being too politically correct that it could have been written by a cold, dead fish with a robot brain powered by HAL. my extreme cynicism of HN comments has been temporarily rolled back. > A lot of things that shouldn't talk HTTP are expected to just because there's an army of programmers who don't know better.…

If we ever end up in the same part of the world, we should grab a beer :-). I share your worries.

Re: Software in 2014

#112

Post by bad_user »

weland wrote: post #62

I think this paints a rather meagre picture of software development in 2014: > More or less everything is expected to talk HTTP, and it’s really easy to make things talk HTTP. A lot of things that shouldn't talk HTTP are expected to just because there's an army of programmers who don't know better. Also, it's actually hard to make things talk HTTP, partly due to HTTP itself. However, much of this complexity is hidden…

> What does suck, indeed, is when people try to use tools that were meant to make HTML docs look nice to build an office suite. They inevitably end up with an office suite that sucks, but that's not the browser's fault.

Yet, because it runs in the browser and is available everywhere, that's why I use Google's Docs. And GMail's web interface is better than any email client I tried until now.

> Browsers are fine as long as you use them for what they are meant to be used: browsing HTML files.

Phones are also fine as long as you use them for what they are meant to be used: initiating phone calls.

So why use browsers as application platforms? Just as in the case of phones becoming potent computational devices, the answer is - because we can and because it brings benefits that aren't easily solvable by any alternative.

Re: Software in 2014

#113

Post by ksk »

72deluxe wrote: post #98
ksk wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the hundreds of millions of Windows users, can you think of thousands (or even hundreds) of Small Businesses making money selling applications to Windows users? The only ones that I know of are large companies - Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, Adobe, VMWare, etc. And if you include the parasites of the software world there are the companies like Symantec, Kaspersky and their ilk. But those are all giant companies.

Perhaps not thousands. But do you use an online accounting package or do they use Sage or Pegasus? Do you use an online 3D modelling system or do you use Maya / Blender / 3DS Max / SolidWerks etc.? Do you use an online media player or do you use MPlayer / VLC / FFMPEG etc.? Do you play games online in a browser or do you play games written under DirectX / OpenGL that run natively? Was your time scheduled at work usin…

How many small businesses are making money shipping software on windows ?

Re: Software in 2014

#114

Post by josteink »

lucaspiller wrote: post #10
hayksaakian wrote: post #4

I agree the client side situation is a mess, but I think its getting better. The biggest problem is the conflict of interest between the major browser makers in that they are also handheld device makers. They have every incentive to keep the browser dumb in order to keep devs using java/objc and staying on their platform. Firefox is really the only thing that has the influence and power to "save us" (obviously barrin…

That may be true with Apple (WebGL please?), but I haven't felt that way about Google before. I've always seen Android as a means to an end for them, to get more people using the web. Any further reading?

I've always seen Android as a means to an end for them, to get more people using the web. Any further reading?

That used to be the story, but then it changed as a means to get people into Google services, and guess what: You don't need a web to do that.

The current state of Android is that all defaults, unless you override them and install third party apps, involve you logging into a Google account and storing and associating everything you do with that: Mail, Contacts, Calendar-data, Photos, Music, etc.

And to install third party apps, you need to log in with a Google+ account, and when you do that, the sync for all the above-mentioned things get activated.

Escaping the Google-creep is getting harder and harder on Android, so I seriously hope FirefoxOS, Jolla, Tizen or anything really will be getting somewhere and soon.

Android is not feeling quite as cozy as it used to anymore.

Re: Software in 2014

#115

Post by lsh »

weland wrote: post #111
lsh wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh my god, you're my new best friend. I was despairing of finding any opinion on HN that wasn't so mired in being too politically correct that it could have been written by a cold, dead fish with a robot brain powered by HAL. my extreme cynicism of HN comments has been temporarily rolled back. > A lot of things that shouldn't talk HTTP are expected to just because there's an army of programmers who don't know better.…

If we ever end up in the same part of the world, we should grab a beer :-). I share your worries.

I'm in London, find me at lsh@ccxx.cx

I'll get the first round.

Re: Software in 2014

#116

Post by weland »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #99
weland wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sounds to me like you've never developed seriously on an ARM chipset. You're selling cucumbers to the gardener, I was actually one career choice away from designing chips, and wrote ARM assembly before there was anything such as a tablet. A mobile phone is slow in comparison to a desktop, but not slow enough to afford an excuse for lagging in most of today's mobile applications. If a Facebook client, a mail applica…

> because it's a piece of crap. I don't think that's a fair assessment. The challenge is that developing for mobile is nowhere near _as_ _easy_ as desktop. So we have a legion of desktop devs coming over to mobile and getting lost, their code doesn't "suck" its fine for desktop its just not good mobile code. Also, power management.

> their code doesn't "suck" its fine for desktop its just not good mobile code

IMHO, code that is not adequate for a platform on which it is intentionally deployed, by definition, sucks. There's no such thing as good application that is fine for any computer except those it is ran on.

Re: Software in 2014

#117

Post by bruceboughton »

bad_user wrote: post #112
weland wrote: post #62

I think this paints a rather meagre picture of software development in 2014: > More or less everything is expected to talk HTTP, and it’s really easy to make things talk HTTP. A lot of things that shouldn't talk HTTP are expected to just because there's an army of programmers who don't know better. Also, it's actually hard to make things talk HTTP, partly due to HTTP itself. However, much of this complexity is hidden…

> What does suck, indeed, is when people try to use tools that were meant to make HTML docs look nice to build an office suite. They inevitably end up with an office suite that sucks, but that's not the browser's fault. Yet, because it runs in the browser and is available everywhere, that's why I use Google's Docs. And GMail's web interface is better than any email client I tried until now. > Browsers are fine as lon…

>> Phones are also fine as long as you use them for what they are meant to be used: initiating phone calls.

Swap tablets for phones then and the GP's point stands.

Re: Software in 2014

#118

Post by pikachu_is_cool »

This is one of the most ill-informed and circlejerky posts on HN I have ever seen. Most of the fallacies in the article have already been addressed, but I thought I needed to point these few relating to mobile out:

> Mobile sucks. First of all, you have to do your mobile development twice. You don’t get a choice of languages; if you hate both Java and ObjC, get another job. Unit testing is a bitch.

You obviously have never done mobile development, or have tried really hard to stay ignorant at what's available to you. Have you heard of Xamarin, or saurik's cycript?

>Fortunately for your users but unfortunately for you, the UX-quality bar on mobile is high and there is no fast or cheap way through; it requires inspiration and iteration.

> The right way to use the Internet is to click in the search box at the top of your browser and type in what you want, and find it, and click on it, and use it. But if the information or service or whatever that you’re looking for has been sucked into mobile, you have to install the app, which means another level of search in the mobile-app store, where search isn’t nearly as good as what Google and Bing provide.

...I'm not even going to bother addressing this.

> You can’t make money. Seriously, Apple is always talking about the billions and billions they pay out of the app store, so why is it that I don’t know anyone who’s making serious money on mobile apps?

I don't know, maybe because everyone you know is a shit developer?

Re: Software in 2014

#119

Post by simonh »

jokoon wrote: post #72
weland wrote: post #62

I think this paints a rather meagre picture of software development in 2014: > More or less everything is expected to talk HTTP, and it’s really easy to make things talk HTTP. A lot of things that shouldn't talk HTTP are expected to just because there's an army of programmers who don't know better. Also, it's actually hard to make things talk HTTP, partly due to HTTP itself. However, much of this complexity is hidden…

> In what freezing fucking hell is a dual-core, 1 GHz computer with gigabytes of RAM and tens of gigabytes of storage and 3D acceleration that can fit in my pocket memory-starved and CPU-starved? Those CPU don't have as much cache memory (which is vital for a CPU to be fast), are very low powered, and not cooled by any fan. Even my $50 nokia can do 3D, 3D acceleration doesn't mean it's a fast device. CPU frequency do…

> If you make an app for a smartphone, you can't really have even one third of the expectations you have on a desktop or laptop computer.

So what you're saying is that in a couple of years mobile phones will be as powerful as today's desktops and laptops?

So any applications you design now that you expect to be relevant in a few years time need to take that into account.

Re: Software in 2014

#120

Post by weland »

bad_user wrote: post #112
weland wrote: post #62

I think this paints a rather meagre picture of software development in 2014: > More or less everything is expected to talk HTTP, and it’s really easy to make things talk HTTP. A lot of things that shouldn't talk HTTP are expected to just because there's an army of programmers who don't know better. Also, it's actually hard to make things talk HTTP, partly due to HTTP itself. However, much of this complexity is hidden…

> What does suck, indeed, is when people try to use tools that were meant to make HTML docs look nice to build an office suite. They inevitably end up with an office suite that sucks, but that's not the browser's fault. Yet, because it runs in the browser and is available everywhere, that's why I use Google's Docs. And GMail's web interface is better than any email client I tried until now. > Browsers are fine as lon…

> Yet, because it runs in the browser and is available everywhere, that's why I use Google's Docs. And GMail's web interface is better than any email client I tried until now.

IMHO, this is a case of solving a problem at a wrong level. I also find that matches provide neither a sufficiently long-lasting, nor a sufficiently intense fire to cook. Longer and thicker matches would obviously be a solution to this, and it would definitely work. That doesn't make it a good solution.

> Phones are also fine as long as you use them for what they are meant to be used: initiating phone calls.

Yes; and I do think smartphones are a terrible piece of engineering. The "mobile" part ceases being true when their battery is only sufficient to allow them to be mobile for the duration of an entry-level delayed road trip. I'd much rather have a dumphone and a tablet than a smartphone.

Post reply on HN