Killing My Career: Not Buying the HTML 5/Java Hype
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
But only available to less than 40% of the browsers out there
It's far better than 40% of the browsers, but yes, it isn't ubiquitous. I've been porting my Silverlight Pandora Clone[^] -- which currently has a nice little following of about 700 users a week -- to HTML5 and JavaScript. The main reason being, with HTML, I can reach iPad, iPhone, and Droid users. So, I figured I'd just use the new HTML5 <audio> tag, right? Surprise! Droid supports the <audio> tag, but supports zero audio formats. (LOL!) Surprise! iOS devices require activating some control before you can play audio. Surprise! Firefox doesn't support the MP3 format because of licensing costs. Surprise! All the browsers have different ways of supporting audio-related events, such as onended. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Granted, you can get around these problems with polyfilling[^]. But even with all the "it's not really supported right everywhere" problems, it's still got the best reach of any technology. Furthermore, the reach only improves with time: Droid is getting proper MP3 support as we speak, for example.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
HTML has not overtaken desktop applications.
It has for almost everything: Email is conquered via the likes of Gmail. Office is being conquered, via the likes of Google Docs, Zoho, Office 365. Music and entertainment is conquered via Netflix, Grooveshark, Pandora. The last bastion of desktop apps I've got are Visual Studio and company-required Lotus Notes. Even development tools like VS will eventually face competition from web-based IDEs that don't churn your hard disk or freeze up while doing a refactoring. As it stands, Microsoft needs to make Windows apps relevant again. As it stands today, Windows apps are in a sick, sad state[^].
Judah Himango wrote:
And the "Javascript escaped the lab" problem is being addressed with higher level languages that compile down to JavaScript. CoffeeScript[^], Script#[^], GWT[^], for example let you write code in a higher level language, like C#, then compile down to JavaScript.
Yes, but (apart from CoffeeScript, which is very close to JS semantically) have you ever tried debugging them. JS alone needs to be fixed if its really going to work as a portable assembly language of the web. Why do you think Flash and Silverlight exist at all?
-
MehGerbil wrote:
Furthermore, if you like HTML 5 that's fine.
I don't particularly like it; it's just that it's abundantly clear that the web won. XAML is a superior technology, but if you want reach, HTML is the way to go. Likewise, C# is clearly superior to JavaScript, but if you want reach, you'll have to bite the bullet and use HTML+JavaScript.
MehGerbil wrote:
FPS games like BF3 aren't going to be in the browser anytime soon.
Why not? WebGL[^] is becoming ubiquitous. Imagine never having to run an installer. Imagine never having to download and install patches. There's no reason that full 3d immersive experiences can't be delivered over the native web.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
Except security. Why do you think MS refuse to implement WebGL?
-
I think your posts here reflect an uninformed view. Java is to Javascript what Poo is to Shampoo. Totally unrelated technologies. Java, Silverlight, Flash are all dying. Web plugins are dying. HTML5 is now powerful enough for 99% of apps out there. I used to hate web development, as I came from a desktop dev background. Now, I've grown to like web development and see it as the future. The only viable native app development for consumers is mobile, and eventually HTML will be powerful enough to overtake that, just as it did desktop apps.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
The only viable native app development for consumers is mobile
I can agree to that... assuming the consumer does nothing but twitter, facebook, mail, youtube and play angry birds.
-
Paul Watt wrote:
What apps do you use that are not natively developed that are on your desktop?
I used to use Outlook or Thunderbird for my email. Now I use Gmail and haven't been happier. I used to use MS Office or Open Office for my documents. Now I use Google Docs. I used to use AIM or Windows Messenger to chat with people. Now I use Facebook, integrated Google chat, etc. I used to store pictures on my computer and email them to people. Now I use Facebook, blogs, and cloud storage to share and preserve photos. I do believe native apps will have a role in the future. But, as of 2011, Windows apps suck monkey balls[^]. We'll see if MS can reverse this trend with WinRT/Metro.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
So, because YOU prefer to store everything on the web, everybody should?
-
I must be getting old. I just refuse to buy the HTML 5/Java Hype. I hate the whole web programming model from start to finish, which doesn't help. Having one langauge for server side code and another for client side code, along with a mass of libraries, CSS, and a dozen other considerations makes my head hurt. It would be fair to call me lazy or unwilling to learn at that point - I won't hate you for that. The thing is, it goes beyond just the ridiculous complexity. The fact is that after 15 years of browser wars the browsers are no closer to behaving the same than they were in 1995. Can you blame them? There is no finalized standard to work against and they trip over themselves in the never ending one-up-manship game. But it gets worse in that the browser isn't the only consideration. Now you've got different hardware that could include anything from a 3" screen up to a 40" screen and beyond. The primary promise of HTML 5/Java is that of program once, run anywhere. I don't see that as deliverable for anything beyond a static web page - at least not without a ridiculous amount of effort and complexity. This is less a failing of the technology and more the result of the various companies refusing to work together to make a developer's life easier. If I had to guess, I'd say in 2020 we'll have just as fractured of a model as we have right now. I think people who write for a specific screen size/hardware/nitch are going to kick the pOOpie out of those who try to cover all bases with a one size fits all solution. That and hopefully most businesses will wake up and realize that for most applications most form factors aren't needed. Just because you can view finanical reports on your iPhone doesn't mean you should. It's okay to get all fanboi over it if you want. I'm just not seeing it. Looks like a great deal of smoke and mirrors to me.
I think programmers get hung up on some notion of consistency as if it makes sense for a "web" application installed on a client to check the browser cache for an updated copy of an HTML dialog EVERY TIME IT DISPLAYS. If the application is installed, why are you checking for updated pages? Because you want to waste computing cycles? Once step forward, two steps back, I suppose. As for this notion of consistency, Emmerson said it best: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
-
MehGerbil wrote:
Furthermore, if you like HTML 5 that's fine.
I don't particularly like it; it's just that it's abundantly clear that the web won. XAML is a superior technology, but if you want reach, HTML is the way to go. Likewise, C# is clearly superior to JavaScript, but if you want reach, you'll have to bite the bullet and use HTML+JavaScript.
MehGerbil wrote:
FPS games like BF3 aren't going to be in the browser anytime soon.
Why not? WebGL[^] is becoming ubiquitous. Imagine never having to run an installer. Imagine never having to download and install patches. There's no reason that full 3d immersive experiences can't be delivered over the native web.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
Why not? WebGL[^] is becoming ubiquitous. Imagine never having to run an installer. Imagine never having to download and install patches
Yes, yes. And imagine having a magic lamp that fullfills all your wishes. Imagination can't take you further then inside your brain. There is simply no way that that something like WebGL will be able to compete with the likes of native DirectX. Honestly, it's pretty dumb to suggest it ever will.
-
No its not - your post represents an uninformed view. At a push, HTML5 plus JavaScript plus CSS3 may be, but a plain HTML5 app would be dull indeed. A significant part of the web is still powered by Java, running on the server. If you think its dying, I suspect you're mainly involved in client-side development, or don't keep up with measures like the TIOBE Programming Language Index[^]. Get out more. I love the web and web development, but really its implementation is a pile or detritus. Almost any individual with a background in web use and understanding of programming language theory could design something better now. Unfortunately, as with most programming issues the industry is resistant to change, so I suspect we're stuck with it until it creaks under its own weight requiring replacement with something better.
You misunderstand. When I speak of HTML5 apps, I'm talking about HTML5+JS+CSS. When I said Java was dying, I was specifically referring to the client. Java on the client is dying/near death. Java applets are essentially dead, and have been for several years now. And JavaFX just hasn't gotten off the ground, and never will. Java on the server is alive and well, and will be for a long time.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
-
I think your posts here reflect an uninformed view. Java is to Javascript what Poo is to Shampoo. Totally unrelated technologies. Java, Silverlight, Flash are all dying. Web plugins are dying. HTML5 is now powerful enough for 99% of apps out there. I used to hate web development, as I came from a desktop dev background. Now, I've grown to like web development and see it as the future. The only viable native app development for consumers is mobile, and eventually HTML will be powerful enough to overtake that, just as it did desktop apps.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
Quote:
Java is to Javascript what Poo is to Shampoo. Totally unrelated technologies.
OT: You made my day!!! :laugh: :-D :laugh: :thumbsup:
-
Judah Himango wrote:
The only viable native app development for consumers is mobile
I can agree to that... assuming the consumer does nothing but twitter, facebook, mail, youtube and play angry birds.
BubingaMan wrote:
I can agree to that... assuming the consumer does nothing but twitter, facebook, mail, youtube and play angry birds.
You just described 98% of the US population.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
-
MehGerbil wrote:
The web is neutral and information on it can be distributed in many ways - hopefully humanity will get its act together and ditch the mess for something that makes sense.
So, you want the web to ditch HTML+JS as an app platform. I understand why you say that. However, it's extremely unlikely; it would require every device in existence to support some new app development platform served over the web. In other words, a boil-the-ocean scheme. A more likely approach is some high level framework that abstracts away the HTML and JavaScript. Think something like Silverlight that compiles down to HTML+JS. That's feasible and we'll probably see things like it in the coming years.
MehGerbil wrote:
I've read more than one article lately where the author has expressed concern over web stores (like the Apple store) where many developers are making good money writing applications specific to a platform - and they ain't using HTML 5 to do it.
Right, mobile apps are relevant. Why? For one, they often do things HTML can't (yet) do, like controlling device hardware. But additionally, mobile apps are relevant because they're safe -- no one worries that an iPad app will install a browser toolbar. Also, they're easy to install and maintain: just go to the app store, click install, and it's there. (Contrast this with the sick state of installing Windows apps[^].) And developers are making money because the vendors (Apple, Google, MS) created app stores with built-in payment models. And that's why MS is doing WinRT/Metro apps. They want all these good characteristics of native mobile apps, and none of the bad characteristics that typify Windows apps today. We'll see whether they're successful. Finally, the interesting thing to see will be in 15-20 years, where HTML will start killing mobile apps, as the technology will have sufficiently evolved so as to be able to control mobile hardware and scale to mobile displays.
MehGerbil wrote:
I'm not making the case that HTML 5 isn't a good thing.
I'm only claiming that I dislike it and I doubt it's future is any better than HTML 4.HTML4 has had an am
Judah Himango wrote:
So it will be in the future: computers and broadband infrastructure will evolve such that even lots of assets can be streamed over through HTTP
Right. And by the time the web is able to host a game with the quality of battlefield in the browser, it will be an ancient game from 15 years before that. And meanwhile, we will be using a native battlefield with an even bigger footprint in super-duper-HD/3d/holograms. That's the whole point. It's not just web infrastructure that evolves. Hardware of devices evolve as well. And the web will always lag behind.
-
Try suggesting to DD that he uses Google Docs instead of Excel and I think you'll begin to see its limitations. For casual use, fine, but its nowhere near as developed as its native counterparts. Same applies to the other members of the suite from what I've seen. How about a macro language. For all the faults of VBA at least it exists, across all their office apps.
Oh, they're definitely not as powerful. But for many people, they're powerful enough.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
-
Judah Himango wrote:
And the "Javascript escaped the lab" problem is being addressed with higher level languages that compile down to JavaScript. CoffeeScript[^], Script#[^], GWT[^], for example let you write code in a higher level language, like C#, then compile down to JavaScript.
Yes, but (apart from CoffeeScript, which is very close to JS semantically) have you ever tried debugging them. JS alone needs to be fixed if its really going to work as a portable assembly language of the web. Why do you think Flash and Silverlight exist at all?
Rob Grainger wrote:
have you ever tried debugging them
The debugging experience could theoretically be improved via the tools themselves. Imagine stepping through C#, rather than JS.
Rob Grainger wrote:
Why do you think Flash and Silverlight exist at all?
To fill the gaps in HTML. Problem is, the gaps are getting smaller.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
-
Judah Himango wrote:
So it will be in the future: computers and broadband infrastructure will evolve such that even lots of assets can be streamed over through HTTP
Right. And by the time the web is able to host a game with the quality of battlefield in the browser, it will be an ancient game from 15 years before that. And meanwhile, we will be using a native battlefield with an even bigger footprint in super-duper-HD/3d/holograms. That's the whole point. It's not just web infrastructure that evolves. Hardware of devices evolve as well. And the web will always lag behind.
Your premise is that games will evolve faster than the broadband infrastructure. That may be true, however, it doesn't prevent the future where games, powered by WebGL, are distributed over the web and played through the browser. Games lend themselves well to a kind of streaming, where not all the assets need to be downloaded before you can start playing.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
-
Except security. Why do you think MS refuse to implement WebGL?
Rob Grainger wrote:
Why do you think MS refuse to implement WebGL?
Conflict of interest. Microsoft makes lots of money and mindshare on games for Windows. Until now, the web has been unable to disrupt that stronghold. WebGL would do so. Furthermore, WebGL is based on OpenGL, which is an open source competitor to Microsoft's DirectX set of technologies. Conflict of interest. If IE wasn't owned by Microsoft, they'd have implemented WebGL long ago.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
-
So, because YOU prefer to store everything on the web, everybody should?
Because everyone IS storing their stuff on the web, the future is here, and MS Windows native apps are becoming irrelevant. MS hopes to reverse this trend with WinRT/Metro apps in Win8. Keep your eyes on that: if they succeed, there will be a lot of money to be made as a Windows app developer. If they fail, MS will have to start thinking about a future where Windows (and by extension, Office) are no longer cash cows for the company.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
-
BubingaMan wrote:
I can agree to that... assuming the consumer does nothing but twitter, facebook, mail, youtube and play angry birds.
You just described 98% of the US population.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
You just described 98% of the US population
80% of statistics used on the internet are made up on the spot.
-
Judah Himango wrote:
Why not? WebGL[^] is becoming ubiquitous. Imagine never having to run an installer. Imagine never having to download and install patches
Yes, yes. And imagine having a magic lamp that fullfills all your wishes. Imagination can't take you further then inside your brain. There is simply no way that that something like WebGL will be able to compete with the likes of native DirectX. Honestly, it's pretty dumb to suggest it ever will.
BubingaMan wrote:
Yes, yes. And imagine having a magic lamp that fullfills all your wishes.
HTML5 is granting us wishes like that. Rub it!
BubingaMan wrote:
There is simply no way that that something like WebGL will be able to compete with the likes of native DirectX.
Why not? Really, why not? A WebGL game has the benefit of: no installers, no end-user patching, cross-platform capabilities, inability to pirate a game, a high level scripting language built right in.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
-
Judah Himango wrote:
You just described 98% of the US population
80% of statistics used on the internet are made up on the spot.
20% are real! :D
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
-
I must be getting old. I just refuse to buy the HTML 5/Java Hype. I hate the whole web programming model from start to finish, which doesn't help. Having one langauge for server side code and another for client side code, along with a mass of libraries, CSS, and a dozen other considerations makes my head hurt. It would be fair to call me lazy or unwilling to learn at that point - I won't hate you for that. The thing is, it goes beyond just the ridiculous complexity. The fact is that after 15 years of browser wars the browsers are no closer to behaving the same than they were in 1995. Can you blame them? There is no finalized standard to work against and they trip over themselves in the never ending one-up-manship game. But it gets worse in that the browser isn't the only consideration. Now you've got different hardware that could include anything from a 3" screen up to a 40" screen and beyond. The primary promise of HTML 5/Java is that of program once, run anywhere. I don't see that as deliverable for anything beyond a static web page - at least not without a ridiculous amount of effort and complexity. This is less a failing of the technology and more the result of the various companies refusing to work together to make a developer's life easier. If I had to guess, I'd say in 2020 we'll have just as fractured of a model as we have right now. I think people who write for a specific screen size/hardware/nitch are going to kick the pOOpie out of those who try to cover all bases with a one size fits all solution. That and hopefully most businesses will wake up and realize that for most applications most form factors aren't needed. Just because you can view finanical reports on your iPhone doesn't mean you should. It's okay to get all fanboi over it if you want. I'm just not seeing it. Looks like a great deal of smoke and mirrors to me.
Agree completely and absolutely. The alternative could be Silverlight which is technically more appealing (C#, virtual machine and so on) but it's also very fragmented and doesn't run on all platforms. So in the while I will stick to my old good desktop apps and let other people do the web programming
-
I must be getting old. I just refuse to buy the HTML 5/Java Hype. I hate the whole web programming model from start to finish, which doesn't help. Having one langauge for server side code and another for client side code, along with a mass of libraries, CSS, and a dozen other considerations makes my head hurt. It would be fair to call me lazy or unwilling to learn at that point - I won't hate you for that. The thing is, it goes beyond just the ridiculous complexity. The fact is that after 15 years of browser wars the browsers are no closer to behaving the same than they were in 1995. Can you blame them? There is no finalized standard to work against and they trip over themselves in the never ending one-up-manship game. But it gets worse in that the browser isn't the only consideration. Now you've got different hardware that could include anything from a 3" screen up to a 40" screen and beyond. The primary promise of HTML 5/Java is that of program once, run anywhere. I don't see that as deliverable for anything beyond a static web page - at least not without a ridiculous amount of effort and complexity. This is less a failing of the technology and more the result of the various companies refusing to work together to make a developer's life easier. If I had to guess, I'd say in 2020 we'll have just as fractured of a model as we have right now. I think people who write for a specific screen size/hardware/nitch are going to kick the pOOpie out of those who try to cover all bases with a one size fits all solution. That and hopefully most businesses will wake up and realize that for most applications most form factors aren't needed. Just because you can view finanical reports on your iPhone doesn't mean you should. It's okay to get all fanboi over it if you want. I'm just not seeing it. Looks like a great deal of smoke and mirrors to me.
I agree completely. I miss how cool and relatively simple programming used to be. No it wasn't necessarily convenient, and there was less you could do, but with convenience and power has come insane levels of complexity. I have come to a realization that I simply don't love programming anymore. Even just trying to keep a career afloat now can be perplexing. C# is fine, but I also have to learn JavaScript and jQuery -- for now. But will I be out of work in 5 years if I don't learn Python...or Ruby on Rails...or what? So I feel your pain. Indeed, I feel it so much so I'm planning a career change in the next couple of years. I think I'll spend my spare time programming the stuff I want to program...see if I can find my lost love.