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

The State of Desktop Applications in Node.js

nodesource.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 115 posts

Re: The State of Desktop Applications in Node.js

#31

Post by callum85 »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #28
callum85 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree with you if you were talking about 20MB. I think that would be my threshold for not caring about how big an app is, i.e. even if it's something really basic like a countdown timer app I would be OK with it being up to 20MB, because as you say, connections are fast and space is cheap. But 100MB? I don't know.

You could install more than 1000 apps on a moderate SSD at 100MB each. How many apps does the average person have installed?

It's nothing to do with how much space it will take up. The problem is that, as a user, I would be very suspicious of a 100MB countdown timer app. I would think that either it's got some kind of adware in it, or just that it's incompetently designed.

Re: The State of Desktop Applications in Node.js

#32

Post by moron4hire »

mid-kid wrote: post #4

The web wasn't made to be used as a desktop app replacement, and it will never be. Quit trying to make it that way, and start using a widget toolkit like you should. Hell, if you love html/js so much, there's a big chance you won't dislike QML. The web is for sharing content, not for games, text editors, and all that stuff. I see google trying to blur the lines between that, but why is it necessary? Just because peop…

>> Quit trying to make it that way

no.

Re: The State of Desktop Applications in Node.js

#33

Post by bootstrapnyc »

moron4hire wrote: post #32
mid-kid wrote: post #4

The web wasn't made to be used as a desktop app replacement, and it will never be. Quit trying to make it that way, and start using a widget toolkit like you should. Hell, if you love html/js so much, there's a big chance you won't dislike QML. The web is for sharing content, not for games, text editors, and all that stuff. I see google trying to blur the lines between that, but why is it necessary? Just because peop…

>> Quit trying to make it that way no.

+1

Re: The State of Desktop Applications in Node.js

#34

Post by evilduck »

kyllo wrote: post #30
FooBarWidget wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, does anybody nowadays care about a 100 MB desktop app? I developed my first app in 1997 with Delphi and it was only 200 KB, so from that perspective I always cringe when I see that an app I've developed is multiple MB. But in all seriousness, do users actually care? Every time I download an OS X app, it's at least 50 MB, but I find that even I don't care anymore because downloading 50 MB nowadays only take…

I can confirm that I don't use Atom because of the overhead of the browser engine. It takes about 30 seconds to launch, and it hangs frequently, which to me is unacceptable for a program that edits plain text files.

30 seconds to launch!? Are you running it on a RaspberryPi or something? On my MBP, it launches about as fast as SublimeText3, 1-2 seconds tops.

Re: The State of Desktop Applications in Node.js

#35

Post by cyorir »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #28
callum85 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree with you if you were talking about 20MB. I think that would be my threshold for not caring about how big an app is, i.e. even if it's something really basic like a countdown timer app I would be OK with it being up to 20MB, because as you say, connections are fast and space is cheap. But 100MB? I don't know.

You could install more than 1000 apps on a moderate SSD at 100MB each. How many apps does the average person have installed?

My laptop has a 256GB SSD. My media collection is 337GB. So a 100MB app doesn't just need to compete with other 100MB apps, it has to compete with my music, videos, and photos. Is a 100MB app better than my photos reminding me of my time in Sapporo, Japan? That depends on the app, but I'm more inclined to delete a 100MB app to make room for more photos than a 20MB app.

Re: The State of Desktop Applications in Node.js

#36

Post by Carrok »

callum85 wrote: post #31
jiggy2011 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could install more than 1000 apps on a moderate SSD at 100MB each. How many apps does the average person have installed?

It's nothing to do with how much space it will take up. The problem is that, as a user, I would be very suspicious of a 100MB countdown timer app. I would think that either it's got some kind of adware in it, or just that it's incompetently designed.

>as a user, I would be very suspicious of a 100MB countdown timer app

You mean as a developer. Your average 'user' does not know or care how big an app 'should' be.

Re: The State of Desktop Applications in Node.js

#37

Post by pjmlp »

Iftheshoefits wrote: post #21
mid-kid wrote: post #4

The web wasn't made to be used as a desktop app replacement, and it will never be. Quit trying to make it that way, and start using a widget toolkit like you should. Hell, if you love html/js so much, there's a big chance you won't dislike QML. The web is for sharing content, not for games, text editors, and all that stuff. I see google trying to blur the lines between that, but why is it necessary? Just because peop…

The hype around HTML/JS as a substitute or replacement for native development has little to do with developer laziness and more to do with commoditizing software development labor. Native is hard relative to (the nearly thoughtless) slapping together of JS and CSS frameworks to "build" an "app." It requires paying people more and taking more time to develop.

I have lots of UI toolkits under my belt since the mid-80's, been doing web development on and off since the .com days.

When compared with RAD tooling like Delphi or XAML, HTML/CSS/JS is anything but easy.

Re: The State of Desktop Applications in Node.js

#38

Post by mempko »

nawitus wrote: post #6
mid-kid wrote: post #4

The web wasn't made to be used as a desktop app replacement, and it will never be. Quit trying to make it that way, and start using a widget toolkit like you should. Hell, if you love html/js so much, there's a big chance you won't dislike QML. The web is for sharing content, not for games, text editors, and all that stuff. I see google trying to blur the lines between that, but why is it necessary? Just because peop…

>I see google trying to blur the lines between that, but why is it necessary? So that people don't need to install, maintain or update applications, and can access them everywhere in the world using just a web browser? And because they're also more secure than traditional applications that you need to install on your PC?

Having apps magically always update without user consent is developer friendly, but not user friendly.

Have you ever used a web app that changed in ways you didn't like?

Re: The State of Desktop Applications in Node.js

#40

Post by gagege »

jekrb wrote: post #20
mid-kid wrote: post #4

The web wasn't made to be used as a desktop app replacement, and it will never be. Quit trying to make it that way, and start using a widget toolkit like you should. Hell, if you love html/js so much, there's a big chance you won't dislike QML. The web is for sharing content, not for games, text editors, and all that stuff. I see google trying to blur the lines between that, but why is it necessary? Just because peop…

|slow, shitty "web apps" Ah yes, nothing is better than waiting 5 minutes for the native Facebook iPhone app to boot up. But seriously, I've mostly switched from facebook to ello just because ello as a web app is faster than facebook as a mobile app. Not all web apps are slow and not all native apps are fast. It's up to the developers to handle that, not the platform. I see a lot of benefits of building and using web…

"5 minutes"? Even if you had said "10 seconds", there's something wrong with your phone. Facebook on my Moto G starts up in under 2 seconds. Same with most other apps.

Besides, I'd rather have an app that takes a little longer to start up, but performs well, than an app that first requires starting a web browser and then on top of that has an interface that runs like a snail.

Post reply on HN