Killing My Career: Not Buying the HTML 5/Java Hype
-
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.
-
20% are real! :D
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
It's irrelavent anyway. I'm a professional software engineer. My business is in B2B. I don't give a damn about facebook, twitter and angry birds. All 3 were banned anyway in just about every company I've been to the past 2 years. You need to make a distinction between actual computing and killing time. I write software for people who actually need to get some work done. And for them, these silly crippled web gimmicks are not enough. They don't even show on the map. It's ridiculous.
-
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 absolutely agree!!! “Web Apps” bug me on so many levels: security is a joke, browser fragmentation, extreme screen sizes, and the programming model just sucks. In fact the web’s only benefits are easy deployment and search visibility. I keep going back to the roots of HTML (HyperText Markup Language). It was designed to be a document format, not programming platform. Turning it into a platform is the definition of a kluge. As for Java, Flash, & Silverlight... Java is slowly going the way of COBOL. (Yes, I still know active COBOL programmers.) Plugin technology (Flash/Silverlight) came from holes in HTML’s design. Even if HTML 5 runs perfectly, it still will not be powerful/functional enough to replace current Flash/Silverlight technologies. (Try rewriting any modern FPS game in HTML 5, you’ll fail.) Flash/Silverlight will just morph to fill the new holes. Silverlight itself is going through some growing pains right now. Anybody who says it's dying is simply wrong. It’s moving beyond the browser into Win Phone and Win 8’s Metro. I believe our future will be more “Web Apps” :(( and app stores :-D. Apple already has an app store on its desktop platform. MS will introduce its app store in Win 8. We’ll be able to write native apps to run on phones and desktop apps while enjoying easy deployment and visibility… and get paid! How can HTML 5 compete?
-
It's irrelavent anyway. I'm a professional software engineer. My business is in B2B. I don't give a damn about facebook, twitter and angry birds. All 3 were banned anyway in just about every company I've been to the past 2 years. You need to make a distinction between actual computing and killing time. I write software for people who actually need to get some work done. And for them, these silly crippled web gimmicks are not enough. They don't even show on the map. It's ridiculous.
Entertainment is a real part of our industry. Social media is, too. It's true they're distractions. But people like distractions, pay money for distractions. The distractions industry is a billion dollar business. :-) I work for 3M. I've been in software for over a decade. Here, they mandate Lotus Notes. I would *love* to trade that piece of crap for a "crippled web gimmick" like Gmail For Business. So let's not pretend everything on the web is just a timewaster. People use the web to get crap done. Increasingly, the web is displacing old style native apps. BaseCamp, Office 365, GDocs, Zoho, WebEx -- people rely on these things today to get crap done. And they're on the web.
BubingaMan wrote:
You need to make a distinction between actual computing and killing time.
As you write an angry reply in the CodeProject lounge. ;P
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.
How dare you say the King is wearing no cloths ...... :) Bottom line is web technology is designed/implemented by people who rush in and don't think things through. Ok CSS is better, but look at HTML5 as a specification its a disaster (think time?). JQuery is great, but it's a sticking plaster over a cess pit that's JavaScript and the browser idiots (read Microsoft and now Google). But guess that's the problem when technology moves fast and is competitive! Plus the lack of a compiled type enviroment for development - anything goes.....
-
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 feel your pain... I hate web design/development. When I am not working solo I usually get into developing the general architecture for the business model and develop the libraries. That usually keeps me out of this whole mess. But sometimes I can't scape from it. And as for HTML5, I still know nothing about it (except all the concepts that have been all over the news all the time) and still don't plan to know it. I wonder if the internet was to be reinvented by developers how it would be.
"To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems" - Homer Simpson
-
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
Judah Himango wrote:
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.
I think part of the confusion is that 'games' is a really big field. There are already browser based games available. I don't think anyone is arguing about that future because it's already here. The argument is whether or not HTML 5/WebGL will be able to deliver cutting edge games and I'm here to tell you that it isn't going to happen. I'm no expert in the field but I'd say a couple of things prevent this from happening. 1: I'd have to wonder why anyone would want to burden HTML 5/WebGL with the necessary libraries/structure/specs to handle high end gaming when it really should be about a useable web. 2: The demands of gaming change so fast and dramatically there is no way a standards body could keep up with it in any meaningful way. I purchased a gaming laptop 2 years ago (6GB of RAM, Duo Core) and it does a choppy job with BF3 (I bought a new one with 16GB of RAM and QuadCore).
Judah Himango wrote:
Games lend themselves well to a kind of streaming, where not all the assets need to be downloaded before you can start playing.
I would say this is NOT the case. You are thinking in terms of level based play - predetermined paths that a single player must take. In that case, I'd agree - however, games like Battlefield 3 allow a player to chose any one of number of maps which means all 16GB of data needs to be available. Also, I can play alongside veteran players who have high end gear which means all textures/stats/etc. for all weapons/outfits/gear must be available at all times and at every level. To us the idea of a web based game (with all the advantages you describe) sounds great. The problem is that gamers don't care about that - they want the latest sick graphics/sound effects and latency less than 50ms. Those demands grow at an alarming rate. They'll throw their money at whoever can deliver - even if it means buying a DVD and having a full fledged OS.
-
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.
Yup. I've always thought this way too... It annoys me that after so many years or supposed progress in the development of applications, the 'dominant' platform now is reckoned to be the browser - a container which essentially 'forgets' everything at each click of the mouse... (<- yeah yeah, stretching it a bit here).. it's being pushed because it's easily monetized.. not because it delivers a better experience for the user (or for the developers writing for it)...
-
Judah Himango wrote:
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.
I think part of the confusion is that 'games' is a really big field. There are already browser based games available. I don't think anyone is arguing about that future because it's already here. The argument is whether or not HTML 5/WebGL will be able to deliver cutting edge games and I'm here to tell you that it isn't going to happen. I'm no expert in the field but I'd say a couple of things prevent this from happening. 1: I'd have to wonder why anyone would want to burden HTML 5/WebGL with the necessary libraries/structure/specs to handle high end gaming when it really should be about a useable web. 2: The demands of gaming change so fast and dramatically there is no way a standards body could keep up with it in any meaningful way. I purchased a gaming laptop 2 years ago (6GB of RAM, Duo Core) and it does a choppy job with BF3 (I bought a new one with 16GB of RAM and QuadCore).
Judah Himango wrote:
Games lend themselves well to a kind of streaming, where not all the assets need to be downloaded before you can start playing.
I would say this is NOT the case. You are thinking in terms of level based play - predetermined paths that a single player must take. In that case, I'd agree - however, games like Battlefield 3 allow a player to chose any one of number of maps which means all 16GB of data needs to be available. Also, I can play alongside veteran players who have high end gear which means all textures/stats/etc. for all weapons/outfits/gear must be available at all times and at every level. To us the idea of a web based game (with all the advantages you describe) sounds great. The problem is that gamers don't care about that - they want the latest sick graphics/sound effects and latency less than 50ms. Those demands grow at an alarming rate. They'll throw their money at whoever can deliver - even if it means buying a DVD and having a full fledged OS.
MehGerbil wrote:
I'd have to wonder why anyone would want to burden HTML 5/WebGL with the necessary libraries/structure/specs to handle high end gaming when it really should be about a useable web.
The whole point of WebGL is making 3d, including gaming, available on the opened web. I don't see the validity in this argument.
MehGerbil wrote:
The demands of gaming change so fast and dramatically there is no way a standards body could keep up with it in any meaningful way. I purchased a gaming laptop 2 years ago (6GB of RAM, Duo Core) and it does a choppy job with BF3 (I bought a new one with 16GB of RAM and QuadCore).
This is a hardware concern more than an WebGL concern. WebGL will have its own evolution, as does DirectX today, and games will have to choose, as they do today, what cutting edge features to use, or what high-end features are optional. But they already do that today.
MehGerbil wrote:
You are thinking in terms of level based play - predetermined paths that a single player must take. In that case, I'd agree - however, games like Battlefield 3 allow a player to chose any one of number of maps which means all 16GB of data needs to be available.
I'm a big gamer. I've played BF for years, and it could work this way: you choose a map, and the assets for that map get streamed to you. It's not as if you have to download all the maps and all the assets to play a single map. On a more general scale, technology finds a way. :) So let's not rule things out because we can't think of a way to do it easily today. If the past has taught us anything, it's that people will find a way to make these things work technologically. It was only a few years ago when people thought web apps would always have to refresh the whole page to show dynamic data. But now we have AJAX, data-binding, and all kinds of tech that didn't exist then, but is now so common, people have grown to expect web apps to work without refreshing the page. Technology finds a way.
MehGerbil wrote:
Also, I can play alongside veteran players who have high end gear which means all textures/stats/etc. for all weapons/outfits/gear must be available at all times and at every level.
No - the assets those players are using (and need to show up on your machine) are the ones that are streamed to you.
-
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
but if both were the same cost (be it both free, or both $100 or whatever), then which would you use? i know id prefer excel on my desktop than resort to the google alternative, if cost was not a factor... and lets not confuse use of the cloud for mere storage with the app itself. yes, i now use a shared folder on dropbox for sharing family pics etc, but i want photoshop on my desktop to edit them / do anything with them.