

Why Web-based development might not be the best choice - ccraigIW
http://weblog.infoworld.com/fatalexception/archives/2009/01/the_case_agains.html

======
pj
_1\. It's client-server all over again._

But without the problems of deploying an application to thousands of desktops.

 _2\. Web UIs are a mess._

These arguments are the same for the desktop apps. Powerbuilder looks
different than .NET looks different than Swing... Besides, maintaining an open
stateful connection to a server is very very expensive and limits scalability.

 _3\. Browser technologies are too limiting._

Wrong! Having to go into the office because your desktop app is installed on
the computer in your cube and you can't VPN is too limiting. Web apps enable
the freedom to access information securely from anywhere much much easier than
desktop apps.

 _4\. The big vendors call the shots._

A little bit of truth here. Browser incompatibilities are a real hurdle, but
so are desktop incompatibilities. I'd rather solve incompatibilities between a
few browsers (which in an organization is usually just /one/ corporate
standard browser) than thousands of different desktop configurations: laptops
for the execs, desktops for the front line, etc...

 _5\. Should every employee have a browser?_

Just because you have a web browser installed doesn't mean it can browse the
"web". Install a firewall or block problem domains -- all the cool
corporations are doing it!

------
quoderat
I have difficulty using web-based apps because they are just too slow for me.
I am a bit of a speed freak, tweaking and overclocking, etc. -- but I do value
my time and I've never used a web-based app whose speed pleased me.

If I have a choice, I'll stick with desktop applications forever.

Sure, they're the right solution sometimes. But that doesn't mean I want to
use them if I can help it.

~~~
gsmaverick
What browser are you using? That usually is most of the problem. Chrome chews
through even the toughest javascript-based apps, including gmail, greader,
facebook. It's way faster to load a web page than to open an application on my
own machine.

~~~
quoderat
I use Firefox 3.0.5 on Linux.

I have 10,000RPM drives in RAID 0, so my computer is always faster to open a
local app than to open a webpage.

~~~
arockwell
When I put ubuntu on my machine at home firefox 3 seemed substantially slower
than it did on windows. I'm not sure if FF3 is crappy on iinux or if there was
something about my install that was screwed up.

~~~
boucher
Firefox has some serious issues on Linux. It's admirable that they make a
browser for Linux, but they do seem to let a lot more fall through the cracks
than on other platforms.

For example, I've seen several websites that crash Linux in Firefox -- not
good. The rendering in general is also not as good as win/mac, esp. with
respect to transparency.

~~~
quoderat
Strange -- it seems faster in Linux to me than in Windows, though I've never
done any formal benchmarks.

Haven't had any crashing problems, either.

------
ryanwaggoner
These are mostly straw-man arguments or issues that are even worse in OS-land.

------
snprbob86
"Browser technologies are too limiting."

Sometimes, this is a very good thing! The current browser technology model is
somewhat of a funky, broken, incomplete technology stack, but has an
interesting set of side effects. I firmly believe that _creativity is born
from constraints_. The browser is a set of constraints that has proven For
example...

1) Modal dialogs, typically an annoyance or "UI smell", are hard to implement
2) Base functionality: back/forward 3) Base functionality: window management
4) Base functionality: collaboration via URL sharing 5) Forced to either be
ugly, or do a bunch of work and thinking. Desktop apps get away with arranging
the native components into a pattern that looks like crap. 6) Can't steal the
focus from other apps

------
skorgu
I fail to see how any but the third is web-specific. Any app with a server
component will have scaling issues, at least there are well-developed
mechanisms for spreading HTTP unlike a home-grown protocol. I've seen _plenty_
of absolutely horrific native client UIs, and I'm looking at you Lotus. OS
vendors _and_ OEMs call the shots on native apps not to mention the nightmare
of poking arbitrary holes in a firewall. And the last point is just a joke.
There needs to be restriction on web access just as there is for applications.
I can't install WoW on my work PC, why is facebook somehow different?

~~~
robotron
His argument about employees shopping and browsing during work hours is easily
taken care of by firewalls and work policies. It actually becomes moot when
you take personal mobile devices into account anyway.

------
jamesjyu
_5\. Should every employee have a browser?_

Making a decision about your technology platform based on how easy it will be
lock down your employee's freedom to access information on the web is one of
the stupidest things I've ever heard.

------
robotron
I don't find these reasons to be compelling. Surely there are other reasons
against web apps like security.

I would actually like to see a more in-depth critique of web apps and a
corresponding one on local apps.

------
Jakob
Exactly. I think you can say at least that the value of a web app can be much
higher much easier if combined with hardware or a desktop application.

------
point
Web apps were a temporary fad. They are good for some type of applications
that are similar to document based (e.g facebook, flickr, HN news), but for
others, web apps are terrible (twitter, photo editing, making phone calls).

There is space for both types, and web apps are not going to replace desktop
apps.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Were? Even if they are part of a fad, it's pretty clear that the fad is still
in full swing.

~~~
point
It's totally dying. I got the memo, maybe you're further down the line than
me. Wait a year or two, the memo will arrive at your desk soon.

~~~
brand
There's no need to be rude about it. What makes twitter better on the desktop
than the web?

~~~
point
Comfort.

