> That doesn't mean we can't change the paradigm, but to do that, we have to stop defending the current model.
Here's the crux of our disagreement. You believe that the web is such a broken application platform that it is possible to convince enough vendors and people to get behind a better solution. However, I (despite your presumptuous implication that I'm a millenial), have been around long enough to know that will never happen. Web standards will continue iterating, and companies will continue building apps on the web, even the most powerful app platforms today such as iOS and Android for all their market power can not stop this force. The reason is because it's a platform that works. The man-millenia behind the web can not be reproduced and focused into a single organized effort. You might as well argue that we replace Linux with Plan 9, it doesn't matter how much passion you have and how sound your technical argument is, Linux, like the web, is entrenched. It's gone beyond the agency of individual humans and organizations to become an emergent effect.
That's not to say that the web might not some be supplanted by something better, but it won't come because of angry engineers wringing their hands about how terrible the web is. It will come from something unexpected that solves a different problem, but in a much simpler and more elegant way, and over time it will be the thin edge of the wedge where it evolves and develops into a web killer.
Maybe I'm just cynical and lack vision, perhaps you can go start a movement to prove me wrong. I'll happily eat my hat and rejoice at your accomplishments when that time comes.
"You believe that the web is such a broken application platform that it is possible to convince enough vendors and people to get behind a better solution. However, I...have been around long enough to know that will never happen."
"That's not to say that the web might not some be supplanted by something better..."
Whomever wrote the first paragraph of your comment should get in touch with the person who wrote the second paragraph.
OK, seriously, though, let's summarize:
1) Person says "web development sucks, here's why: $REASONS"
2) You reply: "it's the only truly cross-platform development environment ever"
3) I (and others) reply: "no, it really isn't. it isn't even a development environment, by any reasonable measure."
Now you're putting words in my mouth about convincing vendors and starting movements. I'm not trying to start a revolution here, just trying to counter the notion that we can't do any better than the pile of junk we've adopted. You don't have to love your captors!
I have no idea if someone will come up with a revolutionary, grand unified solution tomorrow, but I know that this process starts with the acknowledgement that what we have sucks, and that we have lots of examples of better solutions to work from. Hell...just having a well-defined set of 1995-era UI components defined as a standard would be a quantum leap forward in terms of application development.
The irony is I understand your qualitative opinion of the web, and I generally agree with it. What I believe makes you unable to see my argument is an inability to separate technical excellence from the market dynamics that govern adoption.
Declaring the web "not even a development environment" is just absolutist rhetoric that can in no way further the conversation. If you define "development environment" as a traditional GUI toolkit then your're just creating a tautology to satisfy your own outrage.
This is a great discussion. What is it about the English language that makes it so much easier to oppose someone than express nuances in general opinion? I would like to see more discussions like this based at implementation level, surely something valuable and innovative is being grasped at by both sides.
Lets be honest, the web is a developer environment in the same way that a paper aeroplane is a passenger plane. I mean I'm sure its possible to create a 747 from paper, but do you really want to?
Why is it that a new javascript framework pops up each week? Its because the web as a developer environment is deficient. Despite it being standardised so much stuff doesn't work without kludges in each browser
> It will come from something unexpected that solves a different problem, but in a much simpler and more elegant way, and over time it will be the thin edge of the wedge where it evolves and develops into a web killer.
So.. app stores?
It has already begun. The most popular webapps (Facebook, Twitter etc.) already have native clients in Android and iOS. I believe the majority of people already prefer and use the native FB/Twitter apps more often than accessing the FB/Twitter websites. So it's already obvious that native apps must be more convenient.
Right now however, app stores are a little clumsier to navigate compared to browsers.
For webapps:
• you have to open the browser,
• type in the address OR
• use a web search if you don't know the exact address.
But for apps:
• you have to open the app store,
• search for the app,
• potentially filter through unofficial third-party software,
• download the app, possibly after entering your credentials,
• navigate to the app icon,
• authorize any security permissions on startup (in the case of Android or badly-designed iOS apps.)
We just need the Big Three (Apple/Google/Microsoft) to actively acknowledge that app stores can supplant the-web-as-application-platform, and remove some of those hurdles.
Ideally an app store would be akin to searching for a website on Google.com (or duckduckgo.com) with a maximum of one extra click or tap between you and the app.
Apps should also be incrementally downloadable so they're immediately available for use just like a website, and Apple already has begun taking steps toward that with App Thinning.
Ultimately there's no reason why the OS and native apps shouldn't behave just like a web browser, because if web browsers keep advancing and evolving they WILL eventually become the OS, and the end result will be the same to what I'm suggesting anyway.
Currently though, both the native OS side and the web side exist in a state of neither-here-nor-there, considering how most people actually use their devices.
Here's the crux of our disagreement. You believe that the web is such a broken application platform that it is possible to convince enough vendors and people to get behind a better solution. However, I (despite your presumptuous implication that I'm a millenial), have been around long enough to know that will never happen. Web standards will continue iterating, and companies will continue building apps on the web, even the most powerful app platforms today such as iOS and Android for all their market power can not stop this force. The reason is because it's a platform that works. The man-millenia behind the web can not be reproduced and focused into a single organized effort. You might as well argue that we replace Linux with Plan 9, it doesn't matter how much passion you have and how sound your technical argument is, Linux, like the web, is entrenched. It's gone beyond the agency of individual humans and organizations to become an emergent effect.
That's not to say that the web might not some be supplanted by something better, but it won't come because of angry engineers wringing their hands about how terrible the web is. It will come from something unexpected that solves a different problem, but in a much simpler and more elegant way, and over time it will be the thin edge of the wedge where it evolves and develops into a web killer.
Maybe I'm just cynical and lack vision, perhaps you can go start a movement to prove me wrong. I'll happily eat my hat and rejoice at your accomplishments when that time comes.