Killing My Career: Not Buying the HTML 5/Java Hype
-
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.
-
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.
Yeah, some people still prefer Excel to Google Spreadsheet, just as some people still prefer Outlook to Gmail. But that list of people is shrinking. Microsoft recognizes it, and is why they have recently introduced web-based versions of Outlook, the Office suite, and have been re-inventing Hotmail.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
-
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
Quote:
MS Windows native apps are becoming irrelevant.
Tell that to the embedded controller industry. I think quite a few EE's would disagree.
-
Quote:
MS Windows native apps are becoming irrelevant.
Tell that to the embedded controller industry. I think quite a few EE's would disagree.
They may be relevant for niche industries, I understand. But what I'm speaking of is the general population. For the general population, Windows apps are becoming irrelevant, for a wide variety of reasons[^]. Windows 8 is aiming to reverse that trend and make apps relevant for regular people again. We'll see if they succeed.
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.
You're not lazy enough. My approach to web development is quite well established (for myself), and makes web development pleasant and fun: use a Javascript framework to isolate you from browser oddities, write a minimal server-side app which just exposes services and a session mechanism, and put a rich client written entirely in Javascript call the services via JSON-RPC. which is a lot more fun, powerful and flexible than typical desktop development. This wasn't the case three years ago. But even without HTML5, since then things have changed constantly and dramatically improved over the last ten years or so, and while web development was indeed a pain ten years ago, it's quite pleasant today, provided you do it the lazy programmer's way (i.e. use the best what other have already done to make your life easy). My choice of the technology stack is qooxdoo for the UI (although not very popular, it's IMO the best choice available - it completely shields you from html and css, I mean really, completely and absolutely, and working with qooxdoo is actually a lot more like working with Swing than typical web development, except that it's nicer and easier than Swing), spring core for wiring together the server-side Java application, a custom servlet and some servlet filters for authentication and authorization, plus a few other useful spring components (AOP, transaction management and persistence, usually). Occasionally I need to use PHP on the server, but this doesn't change the model much, since most of the app is always in Javascript. Judging by the last few years spent in programming, I'd say that being lazy and refusing to work with painful, enterprisey web technology has in no way killed my career. Besides, you know what? Javascript, after you get to undertand it's philosophy, is a much more powerful language than you might suspect.
-
MehGerbil wrote:
However, the less English speaking people we have the better.
I'm a Geordie, so no problem there. You have heard Cheryl Cole speak haven't you?
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
You have heard Cheryl Cole speak haven't you?
No, but I have heard Brian Johnson. :)
-
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.
Well said. WinForms to WPF to SilverLight to now HTML5? This is what happens when an egotistical salesman runs a technology company. Programming efficiency is greatly helped when each successive technology release builds on the previous one. I've gone from QuickBasic to VB to VB.NET, and because I understood how the tools were designed to be used, I had no problem upgrading one to the other. Even C# is VB with curly brackets and semicolons. :) And for those who think apps and data in "the cloud" are so great, just wait until you lose your stuff when inevitably India and Pakistan have a nuclear hissy fit with one another, or some terrorist organization actvates an EMP device in a major city and the "cloud" goes "poof!"
-
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
Wow, I can't believe that you pointed at a poorly created site to get an app and how they've got all kinds of crap as a dig on actual Windows apps themselves. I've never seen a poorer example of how to make your point. Just because some idiot made a website with 85 download links, only one of which actually get you to paint.net application doesn't mean that the paint.net Windows app is crap, it means the person who created the website is crap. Apples and oranges man, apples and oranges.
Mike Poz
-
Yeah, some people still prefer Excel to Google Spreadsheet, just as some people still prefer Outlook to Gmail. But that list of people is shrinking. Microsoft recognizes it, and is why they have recently introduced web-based versions of Outlook, the Office suite, and have been re-inventing Hotmail.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
Actually what average home usrs prefer is cheap/free alternatives over full desktop apps and app suites. It's purely financial in nature where "ok is good enough" for many. There is definitely a place for it, but there's also definitely a place for full desktop apps/desktop suites when it comes to Office style products.
Mike Poz
-
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.
MehGerbil wrote:
I must be getting old.
I just refuse to buy the HTML 5/Java Hype.I hear ya, and agree. In my particular case I don't have much need to deal with it. When I write any presentation layer stuff it's with WinForms. I have done a little ASP.Net stuff and it's "OK" but I'm not committed to it. I've been trying to get myself interested in Web development since 2001 or so and I just can't sell myself on it. Know what? I realized that I don't HAVE to! :-) I'm slowly working my way through a book on HTML5 just so I can be aware of it but I only care to know enough about it to fix bugs in it if I have to. (Knowing a little HTML has also turned out to be handy with formatting output for Active Reports). However I'm not planning to commit too much gray matter to the web-presentation layer aspect of things. I'm focusing more on tightening my C# and T-SQL knowledge. My primary work is in development of business-layer stuff (rules engines). IOW I crunch the numbers and send the results back up the pipe so the younger guys can make pretty presentations of my data. ;-) It's OK if you don't like web programming, there's plenty of other stuff to do out there. The web presentation stuff might be the most visible thing right now but there's a lot of other stuff you can do without getting involved at that level. Heck, I'm sure there's still a lot of guys out there still writing COBOL back in a server room somewhere and enjoying it (as well as taking it to the bank). -Max
-
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[^].
-
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.
-
Silverlight is not dying. Silverlight 5 may be the last Silverlight released, but exactly the same bunch of technologies is Metro that may be considered Silverlight 6. Thus, if Silverlight dies, many many things will die with it.
Let's be precise here: Silverlight on the web is dying[^]. You said WinRT/Metro is Silverlight 6. No, it isn't. WinRT/Metro is a XAML+.NET Framework subset, like Silverlight. But it is not Silverlight, to be certain: it runs only on Windows, it doesn't run in a web browser, the APIs are different. It's an entirely different beast. Why is Silverlight on the web dying? Because its original premise -- an app platform on the web that runs on all the important platforms -- turned out to be unfeasible. Apple disallowed that sort of thing with Flash, so MS didn't even try it with Silverlight. The remaining use: Silverlight as an app platform on Mac and PC, is still there, but is going away: for most people, Windows 8 won't run Silverlight. That is, if you start Windows 8, launch IE10, it doesn't run any plugins, Silverlight or otherwise. See Microsoft's post: Plug-in Free HTML5 in Windows 8[^]. Now, it's true, you *can* run Silverlight on Windows 8. It just requires that you launch the classic desktop, then launch the desktop-version of IE10, then...oh, screw it, no one will build Silverlight web apps anymore. To further seal the deal, Adobe just announced they're killing Flash for mobile. Meaning, in the near future, Android and iOS devices won't be running web plugins like Flash or Silverlight. Silverlight on the web is dying, and will become irrelevant in 5 years, just as Java applets are today. Silverlight on the Windows Phone is still alive and kicking, and XAML + C# + .NET Framework is still alive and kicking on the server and on Windows 8 Metro. But not Silverlight.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
-
Wow, I can't believe that you pointed at a poorly created site to get an app and how they've got all kinds of crap as a dig on actual Windows apps themselves. I've never seen a poorer example of how to make your point. Just because some idiot made a website with 85 download links, only one of which actually get you to paint.net application doesn't mean that the paint.net Windows app is crap, it means the person who created the website is crap. Apples and oranges man, apples and oranges.
Mike Poz
I didn't say Paint.NET was crap. I said it was one of the best free Windows apps out there. So you either chose to interpet my post uncharitably, or you didn't read it thoroughly. The *experience* is what is crap. And not just the download: the unzipping, the security dialogs, the registration prompts, the disk-churning MSI installation, the long install times, the apps that install toolbars and change my browser search engine, the apps that install malware. The 20 clicks it takes to go from "I want an app" to "I'm ready to use the app." All of it. The experience is terrible. Contrast this with iPad: I click App Store. I type the name. I click install. 3 clicks, and I'm running my app. I don't have to worry about security problems -- apps aren't allowed to fsk my machine. I don't have to worry about apps installing toolbars, or changing my preferences. I don't have to see security prompts. Installs take 5 seconds. I don't have to choose "install for me, or everyone". I don't have to customize installation. I don't have to worry about malware. The platform remembers if I've purchased this before; no registration prompts. I don't have to unzip anything. I don't have to approve UAC security prompts. That's a beautiful user experience. And it's why tablet and mobile computer is threatening to destroy the PC market.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
-
Actually what average home usrs prefer is cheap/free alternatives over full desktop apps and app suites. It's purely financial in nature where "ok is good enough" for many. There is definitely a place for it, but there's also definitely a place for full desktop apps/desktop suites when it comes to Office style products.
Mike Poz
Convenience is another big factor, bigger than financial aspect. If you have to research around the internet for 10 minutes, hunt and peck through a maze of ads to find a download link, answer a browser security prompt, then a UAC security prompt, then type your password, then dismiss a registration dialog, then skip the donate page of the install wizard, then install, then... Or, you go to the app store and click "buy now" on the app with the 5 star rating. The app store model of Apple and Google has proven convenience is something people will pay for.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
-
I didn't say Paint.NET was crap. I said it was one of the best free Windows apps out there. So you either chose to interpet my post uncharitably, or you didn't read it thoroughly. The *experience* is what is crap. And not just the download: the unzipping, the security dialogs, the registration prompts, the disk-churning MSI installation, the long install times, the apps that install toolbars and change my browser search engine, the apps that install malware. The 20 clicks it takes to go from "I want an app" to "I'm ready to use the app." All of it. The experience is terrible. Contrast this with iPad: I click App Store. I type the name. I click install. 3 clicks, and I'm running my app. I don't have to worry about security problems -- apps aren't allowed to fsk my machine. I don't have to worry about apps installing toolbars, or changing my preferences. I don't have to see security prompts. Installs take 5 seconds. I don't have to choose "install for me, or everyone". I don't have to customize installation. I don't have to worry about malware. The platform remembers if I've purchased this before; no registration prompts. I don't have to unzip anything. I don't have to approve UAC security prompts. That's a beautiful user experience. And it's why tablet and mobile computer is threatening to destroy the PC market.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
I didn't say you said paint.net was crap. You said this:
Quote:
But, as of 2011, Windows apps suck monkey balls[^]. We'll see if MS can reverse this trend with WinRT/Metro.
That was a dig on Windows apps in general, not against purchase/download sites. The hyperlink in your statement pointed to an article about purchase/download sites as justification for your statement that windows apps suck monkey balls. I'm not arguing against the link's statement that sites like that suck monkey balls, they absolutely do. I'm arguing against your base statement that the *apps* suck monkey balls, which is what your sentence actually says. I'll admit that many apps do suck, but many are actually quite good, but you made a blanket statement about apps, not app purchasing websites.
Mike Poz