what do you want to accomplish?
A. producing a markup-driven portable readable user agent-independent interpreted document to present information to a user?
B. letting a user interact with a custom application with which you provide services and solutions for some problem they have for which they don't have a tool to solve it?
if it's A you chose the correct platform. a web browser is designed to retrieve, present and traverse information through a vast network of resources. it has the flexibility, speed and low cost of resources to let you pull tons of content quickly and easily. after all, we all have at least a gigabyte of RAM. you should be able to browse hundreds of pages and never max out that amount of RAM - right?
if it's B this is the wrong choice, and for a simple reason: a browser is not an application platform. it was never designed to provide for you all the tools you need to support the myriad of applications' needs. imagine all the components of an operating system and what it provides to allow simple applications to do simple things. now consider a web browser and what it provides. starting to get the picture? here's a simple comparison: an operating system is a fortune 500 company and a web browser is a guy with a lemonade stand. no matter how many 'features' he can sell you, the super low-calorie healthy organic sweetener, the water sourced from natural local clean purified streams, whatever: it's still lemonade.
technical reasons why web apps are dumb:
- in a very literal sense the browser is becoming Frankenstein. slow, kludgy, gigantic, unstable, a security risk.
- verifying if my credit card number was typed in correctly is fine, but javascript should never run actual applications or libraries.
- applications that can interact with the local machine natively can do a wide array of things limited only by your own security policies and the extent of your hardware and installed libraries (which can be bundled with apps). web apps have to have the right browser installed, the right version, and compete with whatever other crap is slowly churning away, restricted by hacked-on browser security policies designed to keep your browser from hurting you.
- web applications are not only sensitive to the user's browser & network connection, they require your server backend to provide most of the computation resources. now not only can a user not rely on the application as much, you have to put up the cost of their cpu & network time, which is much more difficult than it is expensive when you really start getting users.
- the user doesn't really give a shit how their magical box provides them what they want. they just want it immediately and forever and free. so you're not really tied to using the web as long as you can provide them the same experience or better.
- seriously - Web Sockets?! are you people fucking insane? why not a Web Virtual Memory Manager or Web Filesystems? or how about WebDirectX? ..... oh. nevermind. *headdesk* i can't wait for Real-Time Web Pages.
i know what you're saying: what the hell else am i supposed to do? make native apps? i would compare the smartphone mobile app market to the desktop app market but the truth is it's ridiculously easier to bring in customers for mobile apps. and yes it's probably ten times easier building web apps with all the fancy friendly frameworks that can be tied together to push out new complete tools in hours instead of days or weeks. but that's also no excuse because it's all just code; we could build easy frameworks for native or mobile apps too. what is the alternative? is there one?
i don't think there is. Yet. you see, where the web browser fails us we have an opportunity to create a new kind of application. something that's dynamic and ubiquitous yet conforms to standards. something easy to deploy, cross-platform and portable. something using tools and libraries implemented in fast native code. something with an intuitive interface that exposes a universal "store front" to download or buy applications to suit our needs. something local AND scalable. sounds like a pipe dream.
maybe we can't have everything. but i see pieces of this idea in different places. when i look at Steam i see most of what's necessary for a store for applications, a content delivery system, a (mostly) secure user authentication mechanism. if it were possible to take the simplicity of Python (but you know, without the annoying parts) and make it reeeeallly cross-platform by design, then produce simple frameworks to speed up building of new complete tools.
the last thing you'd need is a way to make it sexy enough for everyone to pick up and start using. there's the difficult part. it seems to me that the competition of a few major players and the evolution of standards for new web technology is what led the arms race to bring "web apps" as the most ubiquitous computing platform for user interaction (next to mobile apps). that and the trendy, almost generation-specific explosion of investment of time in javascript-based frameworks led everyone to just build web apps by default. the new solution has to be needed for something for anyone to pick it up. you could start it as a browser pet project, but it seems uncertain whether other browsers would pick up the technology or wait it out.
this is where my sleep deprivation and the hour's worth of work i need to put in makes me ramble more than usual. my main point here is: make it easy, make it convenient, and make it somehow better than what we've had before. the end goal is of course, to stop creating bloated-ass crazy insecure web browsers that threaten our financial and personal lives and instead make stable, powerful applications which don't need a specific kind of browser or class of machine to run (necessarily).
bottom line: browsers aren't an operating system and the world wide web is not the internet. the former merely is part of the latter.
(disclaimer: i don't write web apps)
No comments:
Post a Comment