Live data from Hacker News

WASM Wayland Web (WWW)

joeyh.name

221–226 of 226 posts

Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bullshit. Undo in a macOS text entry box is part of the widget’s implementation and you get it for free. It doesn’t need to be tied to the app’s state, since it’s just working on the text you put into the box. Have you actually built any native macOS apps? I have.

Ah, my apologies. I thought you were talking about something like an undo button, rather than cmd+z within a particular text box. Sure, point taken. Native widgets might work differently than cross-platform ones. That said, there's no reason a cross-platform widget couldn't work identically to the native one. Indeed, a platform's native widgets an effective way to give users a consistent style and functionality acros…

Sure, I won’t dispute that it saves time to build apps this way, and that may be the right choice. But the results still suck and I still don’t like them.

Ironically, out of the apps I use regularly, the ugly, misbehaving apps built with cross-platform frameworks are from big companies that could easily afford to do it right, like Slack. The apps I use that come from small indie developers are all native. I suppose this is down to competition. I tend to have a choice for those apps, so I can choose ones that work the way I like. For Slack, my choices are to use the app, use it on the web (same as using the app, more or less), or find a new job at a company that uses something else.

Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "weaponization of complexity" as you call it is simply "work is done by those who show up". Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, Apple, etc took the horribly dastardly approach of "participating" and then "doing the work". The horror. Microsoft gave up because it wasn't worth it when someone else was willing to do the work. It was not something that was adding value to them by them doing it themselves anymore. It's hilari…

Money and resource are not the problem nor the reason microsoft gave up on their own browser engine. Same as why they gave up on mobile. No reasonable amount of engineering resources would have made a dent in the problem. What OP is calling "weaponization of complexity" is just the asymmetry of effort required between new comers and entrenched players. You would have to be naive to think that google would just open t…

"No reasonable amount of engineering resources would have made a dent in the problem. What OP is calling "weaponization of complexity" is just the asymmetry of effort required between new comers and entrenched players."

This literally makes no sense. What does it mean to have a high asymmetry but somehow, "no amount" can make a dent in the problem. The claim in the OP is about engineering effort, not about "it's hard to get people to want your product" or whatever.

So what exactly are you trying to say here?

"You would have to be naive to think that google would just open their arms and kumbaya with microsoft to do the "hard work""

I mean, i was there for Google, with plenty of others, and I know what we were thinking, because I was partially in charge of it? Please, tell me more about what I and others were thinking. Were you there? Do you have any data or evidence?

The naive thing is usually thinking people on the internet with no actual knowledge won't make up a history that suits their narrative.

"No. The end goal is to make money. Sometime it requires helping user, other time a bunch of anti competitive ( forcing android oem to prevent meaningful forks)and anti consumer (like playing hard ball with ad blockers) BS."

Again, please produce evidence rather than conjecture. What actual first hand evidence are you presenting here? (IE not opinions of random internet people who were not involved in any way). There actually are some folks involved who have this view, but my experience is they are far outnumbered by those actually trying to help. But you haven't even gone so far as to provide evidence from one of these folks who does disagree with my view!

"So much wrong with this. And is just a strawman. OP is not saying that it's not hard problem solving. The point is the solution achieved is self serving and sucks for the rest of us."

If so much is wrong with it, describe it. You've also now switched arguments from "no amount of engineering will make a dent" to "i don't like the solution they engineered". Which is it, exactly?

"Yeah no. History disagree with you"

Then, again, it should be really easy to produce evidence of this from folks involved. Where is it?

Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "weaponization of complexity" as you call it is simply "work is done by those who show up". Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, Apple, etc took the horribly dastardly approach of "participating" and then "doing the work". The horror. Microsoft gave up because it wasn't worth it when someone else was willing to do the work. It was not something that was adding value to them by them doing it themselves anymore. It's hilari…

This reads like a semi-incoherent essay from someone who doesn't really understand what complexity is and has a chip on their shoulder about something completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

Cool, want to actually engage, or are you also going to just throw rocks from the sidelines?

Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reads like a semi-incoherent essay from someone who doesn't really understand what complexity is and has a chip on their shoulder about something completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

Yeah and coming from someone with so much experience and industry knowledge as dannybee i find that perspective very puzzling. Just painting the situation as well google have influence because they work the hardest is just bizare. Having been in some standard / comity meetings. Everyone in those room work very hard... but someone hard work is not enough

The latter is definitely true, and i don't claim otherwise.

But that's not actually the argument really being made here with any evidence. That would be a reasonable argument, but it's also always true - we are human, not robots, that's how humans work in any group setting. So it's not particularly interesting or particular to this that social and other things matter as much as pure technical merit or hard work.

But again, this isn't the argument the post makes. Instead, in this case, the argument being made is (basically) "Nobody in those rooms is operating in good faith, they are instead deliberately trying to make it harder for newcomers. They also only have any power at all through illegitimate means in the first place".

I do not believe any of this to be true.

Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)

#225
post #99

The web had this before briefly. Back in the 90s and 00s, some people just wanted to use Flash. They treated the web browser like it was just a way to run executables in a window. Nothing worked right. Bookmarks, search engines, command-line tools, user preferences for font size, user scripts, view source, right-click menus, ad blockers, auto-translations, user stylesheets, assistive tools, bookmarklets, deep links……

The difference between now and then is that people back then wanted bookmarks, search engines, CLIs, user preferences, user scripts, view source, right-click menus, ad blockers, auto-translations, user stylesheets, assistive tools, bookmarklets, deep links and so forth. While some of us still do, the great mass of web users now just want TV on their smartphones: they want an attention-consumption device to distract t…

This is the same tale from technologists about how all the other Web users are just drooling morons who want to connect their brain stem directly to the Matrix. With the only relevance being the rose colored glasses of when the Web wasn’t (apparently) used by the Untouchables.

Web technology: made either by and for tech. enthusiasts or techies who hate your guts.

Post reply on HN