521–530 of 717 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but I think the push for web apps is mostly about lock-in and ad-financed web services.
How do web-apps help lock-in? Because you can force users to update?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The security aspect was an interesting part of this piece, because one of the main reasons webapps took over from Windows apps is because they were perceived as more secure. I could disable ActiveX and Java and be reasonably confident that visiting a webpage would not pwn my computer, which I certainly couldn't do when downloading software from the Internet. And then a major reason mobile apps took over from webapps…
> A programmer thinks of all the ways that a program could fuck up your computer; it's a large part of our job description. The average person is terrible at envisioning things that don't exist or contemplating the consequences of hypotheticals that haven't happened. I'm not sure programmers are much better. There's a long history of security vulnerabilities being reinvented over and over. Like CSRF is simply an inst…
If programmers paid more than lip service to responsibility, the whole dumb paradigm of "worse is better" would not exist in the first place. As it is, we let the market decide, and we even indoctrinate young engineers into thinking that business needs is what always matters the most, and everything else is a waste of time (er, "premature optimization").
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The combination of html/CSS is much easier (for me at least) to work with than most other rendering framewor Html+css is not a rendering framework. Also, come back with your "much easier" when you need to do anything even remotely resembling iOS's screen transitions, animations, and capabilities for constrained layout. Even properly implementing the seemingly simple toolbar in Google Docs is an excercise in endless…
My bad, i didn't express myself, for rendering framework i mean both the language and the technology that actually "execute" them. I understand that different browser do thing different but the concept are the same. Also i don't know ios very well, but i have implemented complex layout in both android and the html/css/js and i can say that android is MUCH more frustrating, even when we consider browser backward compa…
Meanwhile, for every small thing that you need on the web you need to reinvent things from scratch. Animations. Lists/virtual lists. Containers. Toolbars. Menus. Keyboard shortcuts. Constrained layouts. Layouts in general. Interactions. Combinations of anything above. Any basic UI component and interaction you can think of is non-existent on the web, and is re-implemented poorly and inconsistently by an infinite number of various UI frameworks.
I rather think, It's time, to completley ignore sensationalistic rant's like this one. First of, killing a technology does not solve anything. It just means less options. So do propose your better solution (and build it) - then we can talk about killing the current thing. But the way it is today, the web works. Definitely not flawless and in large parts really ugly (just browsing with open dev-tools is horrifying, wh…
What's odd is that this article is so well written that it really clicks with bitter developers who are just confused in the vast sea of alternative technologies with the web. At least that's my guess why there's so many upvotes here. I feel that anyone who rants like this comes from a low level micromanagement world where they have extreme control over everything any they can't have it with web technologies. Fine, b…
Hearn has a penchant for penning very well written articles but complaining about systemic issues rather than directly solving them.
He was the kernel of the block size split that occurred in bitcoin starting in 2015 whose vitriolic fruit still bears today. Rather than face up to the fact that his fix proposals were either technically and or politically dead on arrival, he claimed a vast conspiracy.
There are some valid claims in this post but again it’s too heavy on complaining and light on the solutions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are they? Most 'web apps' I use have a preferable browser size; if you use them at a smaller size they still work (they are responsive) but are just unusable for anything sane. So superior... I made those layouts with Delphi too early 90s and the same consistent behavior was true then as it is now; 99% (to not get 'source?' questions; I have been writing consumer software for almost 30 years and in my experience + th…
Delphi was better in that regard, because you could anchor sides and corners of widgets to their containers. In many cases, it was sufficient to allow for a resizable layout. But it doesn't solve the problem with high DPI, changing fonts, and localized strings being sometimes significantly longer, requiring widgets to be resized to accommodate them.
When I click on some languages (I am not native English and my native language, Dutch, is not very high on the list of priorities for most companies) in some of the biggest companies in the world, you notice it just wasn't designed for that. From just making it wrap and enlarge to break the design to simple sticking outside the box.
For some localizations (Chinese for one) you will have to redesign anyway because 'our' (not sure how to describe) designs simply do not work/sell over there.
Most global companies have a local presence doing their local sites; I know some, even inside the EU, very big companies that have a site per country and have the html/css look 'the same-ish' for the user but completely different when you check the source to accomodate for local taste / language.
I like the dream of this working, as I am a programmer, but I don't see it in real life and I find html/css just painful to work with; not difficult but painful compared to most desktop GUI tech. Flexbox etc is changing that a bit but still it looks like people are shoehorning everything in this html5 stuff just because they desperately not want to use/learn other things instead of using the best tool for the job.
Disclaimer: I am old and have seen this before. I do create webapps and use React (new license makes it workable outside hobby projects), but I will gripe about it like the author of the blog post.
>In part 2 I’ll propose a new app platform that is buildable by a small group in a reasonable amount of time, and which (IMHO) should be much better than what we have today... Next time: how we can do that. i look forward to that article. This one, on the other hand, seems a little pointless. Does the web have problems? yes, absolutely. But I have a hard time believing the best way to solve them it to tear down every…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
XHTML was not "dead on arrival"; that is some seriously fabricated FUD. XHTML came at a time when it was entirely positioned to take over as the proper way of doing things. It had its own mime type to differentiate itself from HTML, in order to allow older content to continue to be served as soup during a deprecation phase. The demand for this strictly validatable syntax was incredible; it was absolutely in a place w…
> The fact you have to write instead of You don't. is valid, but in XHTML . If you don't get the mimetype right, and the browser isn't parsing you as XHTML, it won't work.[1] In HTML5, self-closing tags are only valid in particular contexts, and this isn't one of them.[2] (Really, for the HTML tags, you can pretend that self-closing doesn't exist in HTML5, so no . Since script sometimes has content, it needs a closer…
The fact that the html5 spec does not permit self-closing CDATA elements is precisely the kind of legacy trash we'll be dealing with for yet another 10-30 years. (I understand that html5 didn't change the parsing rules from HTML 4 in order to be backwards-compatible, but it's still infuriating).
I rather think, It's time, to completley ignore sensationalistic rant's like this one. First of, killing a technology does not solve anything. It just means less options. So do propose your better solution (and build it) - then we can talk about killing the current thing. But the way it is today, the web works. Definitely not flawless and in large parts really ugly (just browsing with open dev-tools is horrifying, wh…
Does it really? What would you hold up as an example of a powerful web app with significant usage?
All the major players these days (like Facebook) get the overwhelming majority of their traffic through their native mobile app, not through their web app. The web's primary stronghold is in publishing platforms (news, articles, etc...), which are not really what you'd call "apps" and indeed they are the one thing the web was actually built for and good at - static(-ish) content.
I find this unconvincing. Every negative thing said about the web is true of every other platform, so far. It just seems to ignore how bad software has always been (on average). "Web development is slowly reinventing the 1990's." The 90s were slowly reinventing UNIX and stuff invented at Bell Labs. "Web apps are impossible to secure." Programs in the 90s were written in C and C++. C is impossible to secure. C++ is im…
This might be the biggest dichotomy I've yet seen on HN. An opinion piece voted all the way to the top of the front page (with a clickbaity title, might I add), yet the top comment soundly debunks the article's arguments. Yeah, this is why everybody clicks on the comments link first.