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[^].
-
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
-
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 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
Yeah, Windows apps do suck, because of the experience. As for Paint.NET, I said in the opening paragraphs to the article,
Today, I want to install one of the best, free Windows apps: Paint.NET. It’s a great photo editing tool, and I want to install it on my new work laptop.
I love that tool, and have followed it since it was a university project. It's a shame they have to monetize it through sleazy ads. It's a shame the download/unzip/install/run process took something like 20 clicks. It's not their fault; it's the state-of-the-art of Windows apps in 2011. Metro apps on Windows 8 promise to fix these problems. I hope MS succeeds.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
-
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
Judah Himango wrote:
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.Not that's pretty funny. I tried gmail, and after traveling around a bit with my laptop, dropped back to a desktop client asap. Nothing like not being able to view/respond/edit/sort/etc your mail while you're out of reach of a wireless network. Then there's the security concerns (yes, I don't trust google) While I don't like MS Office nor OOO particularly well, they both blow the doors off of Doodle Docs. I couldn't see using Google Docs for anything more than publishing a doc created elsewhere. BTW, I also have a business Google Docs account, provided by work. I use a desktop IM client. With optional PTP/client to client encryption. Again, there's that whole trust issue. I don't. I wouldn't trust the cloud, blogs, and especially not Facebook for anything I found important. Not only that, it would take me months to upload even a part of my data. HD film just doesn't travel well even on broadband. Nor do 18MB raw pics. So for these reasons, and more, I'd say that while the net apps are a nice POC, they are barely alpha quality products. Compared to desktop apps, they are like downhill derby racers made solely by 5 year olds from scratch trying to compete with a Camel GT racer. Now, if you like being tied to and affected by the latency of an active connection for everything you do and being restricted to less than 5% of the capabilities of a desktop app, not to mention the real potential of losing anything you're working on when the browser crashes, well, by all means, please do use your web apps.
-
Judah Himango wrote:
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.Not that's pretty funny. I tried gmail, and after traveling around a bit with my laptop, dropped back to a desktop client asap. Nothing like not being able to view/respond/edit/sort/etc your mail while you're out of reach of a wireless network. Then there's the security concerns (yes, I don't trust google) While I don't like MS Office nor OOO particularly well, they both blow the doors off of Doodle Docs. I couldn't see using Google Docs for anything more than publishing a doc created elsewhere. BTW, I also have a business Google Docs account, provided by work. I use a desktop IM client. With optional PTP/client to client encryption. Again, there's that whole trust issue. I don't. I wouldn't trust the cloud, blogs, and especially not Facebook for anything I found important. Not only that, it would take me months to upload even a part of my data. HD film just doesn't travel well even on broadband. Nor do 18MB raw pics. So for these reasons, and more, I'd say that while the net apps are a nice POC, they are barely alpha quality products. Compared to desktop apps, they are like downhill derby racers made solely by 5 year olds from scratch trying to compete with a Camel GT racer. Now, if you like being tied to and affected by the latency of an active connection for everything you do and being restricted to less than 5% of the capabilities of a desktop app, not to mention the real potential of losing anything you're working on when the browser crashes, well, by all means, please do use your web apps.
Member 8492445 wrote:
I wouldn't trust the cloud, blogs, and especially not Facebook for anything
:laugh: Well, the tin foil hat party is alive and well. What matters is what regular people do. That's what makes an app relevant or not. And the tin foilists are in the minority, fine sir! :-) Most people have no issue letting Google, Amazon, Microsoft, or Apple store their data, back it up, and make it available over the web. For you, a distrusting technologist who can backup your data, mirror it across servers all over the world, and access it even on mobile devices (you do all that, right?) then by all means, have at it. :)
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
-
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
If being precise means understanding Silverlight as a marketing term, then I agree fully. Yes, Silverlight in a browser is dying, possibly due to the yet inexistent HTML5, or due to the fact that it was not designed to be there. Out of browser Silverlight may live, but in Metro disguise. The only thing actually done in Silverlight, marketing and borrowing from .NET aside, is thorough application of security attributes and some install and upgrade infrastructure. Thus I never understood why the media called Silverlight a Microsoft answer to Flash. Nothing in common beyond the ability to run games and video. Silverlight could be compared to Flex, but Flex was DOA and any comparison to it might be considered unfavorable. Now MS has Metro and does not need Silverlight as a separate technology. I guess this is the main reason Silverlight is eagerly declared dying, HTML5 being just an excuse.
-
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
I agree completely on the reach part. HTML+Javascript is really winning. But my question is: Isn't possible for W3C (or similar) to create a better organized Layout + Script standard, and make it the real "HTML 5", independent of the name? What I don't like on the web actually is not only the lack of compatibility between browsers... but the fact that the tokens themselves are not organized. Why the tag is A, not Link? (ok... it means anchor... but, again, why not Anchor instead of A?) For me, Xaml shown that it is better than HTML and XML. I still think that somethings are not quite right with it and I don't say the web should be like Silverlight... but I do think it should have a better standard.
Do you want to create a new programming language? Do you want to know how to create a virtual machine? Are at least interested on how they work? So, see my article: POLAR
-
I agree completely on the reach part. HTML+Javascript is really winning. But my question is: Isn't possible for W3C (or similar) to create a better organized Layout + Script standard, and make it the real "HTML 5", independent of the name? What I don't like on the web actually is not only the lack of compatibility between browsers... but the fact that the tokens themselves are not organized. Why the tag is A, not Link? (ok... it means anchor... but, again, why not Anchor instead of A?) For me, Xaml shown that it is better than HTML and XML. I still think that somethings are not quite right with it and I don't say the web should be like Silverlight... but I do think it should have a better standard.
Do you want to create a new programming language? Do you want to know how to create a virtual machine? Are at least interested on how they work? So, see my article: POLAR
Paulo Zemek wrote:
But my question is: Isn't possible for W3C (or similar) to create a better organized Layout + Script standard, and make it the real "HTML 5", independent of the name?
I understand. The problem is, that's a boil-the-ocean scheme. You're asking for a new layout language and a new scripting language for programming the web, one that we assume is not backward compatible with HTML+JavaScript. That's a boil-the-ocean scheme, because it requires every device in existence to support a new app platform. What you *might* see, and maybe this is acceptable to you, is abstraction: frameworks and languages can abstract away the HTML and JavaScript. Then, you can write your program in a higher-level language, like C#, and with a UI framework with better layout schemes than HTML. Then you hit compile, and it spits out plain old HTML+JavaScript. That's possible, and in fact, is happening today.
Paulo Zemek wrote:
Why the tag is A, not Link? (ok... it means anchor... but, again, why not Anchor instead of A?)
That's just the way the web evolved. Search the web, you'll find logs from the early days of the internet where browser vendors and software dealers who worked on proto-Netscape and others were arguing over whether it should be called an anchor tag or a hyperlink tag. Did you know <img> was almost <icon>? In fact, there were two competing implementations for a time. Minutia like that was argued to death. Eventually, for better or worse, out of all that ugly muck, we ended up with the HTML spec we have today. It's not perfect, but it works. :thumbsup:
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.
I have been in this industry since 1991 as developer, designer, pm ... successfully. I completely agree to your idea. The problem is, the big companies are making decisions for making more money. If programmers were comfortable in developing software, then their margin of profit would reduce a lot plus having more and stronger competitors! This is a reality and unfortunately who has more money can lead the market.
-
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
That's all good for data you can afford to lose. If those sites went down and your account was lost, it shouldn't be a big deal to you.
-
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
When I was in college, everyone knew that Pascal was going to take over the computing world. End of story. The CS Professor told me I was wasting my time learning that new fangled language 'C'. It was a just a fad. I've heard similar pronouncements about COBOL, RPG, Lisp, TurboBasic, etc... So I think I've seen this movie before. It looks like a remake of an old plot.
-
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.
Nope, web apps will take over, because every business wants their internal data transferred around the world and back with every mouse click....
-
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.
BubingaMan wrote:
I'm a professional software engineer. My business is in B2B.
I don't give a damn about facebook, twitter and angry birds.Exactly. There are tools, and there are toys.
XAlan Burkhart
-
I'm gonna do you one better. I'm forming a new HTML language authority. We'll work on defining HTML 6 and we'll bill ourselves as the people responsible for this new version from start to finish. We'll get all of our friends together and give them high paying jobs, set a 'due date' of 2030, and then sit back and do nothing for the next two decades while enjoying our own sense of self appointed, self aggrandizing importance. Oh sure, we'll actually employ a couple of code monkeys to dribble out a spec now and again - or better yet, write imaginary specs and see what the web makers do with it and just copy their work. This is great because the browser manufacturers would want us to copy their work and I bet they'd pay us to copy their work. What would Microsoft pay under the table to be able to author the ACID6 test for IE 15? I'm thinking somewhere north of 9 figures - or probably half of what the European Union would be willing to pay for the privilege if it allowed them to sue Microsoft again. The money wouldn't be in our salaries - it would be in the sheer power of doing absolutely nothing while cutting deals to keep it that way. Which hints at credibility - we'd give ourselves credibility by putting a few Europeans on the board and we'd frequently trash talk Microsoft. We'd keep pointing toward some future date on the horizon when "harmony" would be acheived. Heck, even if we failed I'd be ready to retire after 2 decades of wine and cheese. Who wants in as a founding board member?
MehGerbil wrote:
Who wants in as a founding board member?
I excel at writing buggy, useless code. I'm your guy! :)
XAlan Burkhart
-
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
My thoughts as well. Most of what I write is either for my own use or a specialty app for an individual. Desktop apps work fine for me.
XAlan Burkhart