emscripten

Michael Stover michael.r.stover at gmail.com
Wed Dec 15 12:52:32 PST 2010


>With my own computer, there are things I can do to prevent that. With
webapps I'm 100% reliant on someone else: there isn't a damn thing I can do.

But what about your group-think lemming mother?

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:

> "Michael Stover" <michael.r.stover at gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mailman.1037.1292442333.21107.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 2:26 PM, retard <re at tard.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:40:50 -0600, Andrew Wiley wrote:
> >>
> >> > The point was that while Javascript is slow, it's getting fast enough
> >> > to be useful. Yes, it's not C. It will never be. But the fact that any
> >> > sort of realtime calculations are possible in it is a breakthrough
> that
> >> > will be reflected in actual application code. Javascript was not
> >> > designed to be fast, and honestly, it doesn't need to be fast to fill
> >> > it's niche.
> >>
> >> I'm not getting this. WHY we should use Javascript/HTML5 applications
> >> instead. I'm perfectly happy with my existing tools. They work nicely.
> It
> >> takes years to develop these applications on top of HTML5. I simply have
> >> no motivation to use web applications. They have several downsides:
> >>
> >>  - you "rent" the app, you don't "own" it anymore
> >>
> >
> > Many would find that a benefit, as updates are automatic, never need to
> > install new versions.
> >
>
> It's not uncommon for newer versions to be worse. Look at Acrobat Reader,
> iTunes, and Nero. A lot of people don't want to be forced into updates that
> make things worse. My Mom uses Hotmail and has a fit every time they decide
> to change everything around (which seems to be quite a lot). She'd be far
> happier with something that didn't work that way, but she sticks with it
> because she's every bit as much of a group-think lemming as everyone else.
>
>
> >
> >>   => which leads to: advertisements, monthly fees
> >>
> >
> > Again, benefits galore for some folks.  Should I pay $80 to buy the
> > software
> > and find out if I like it, and another $40 two years later to upgrade, or
> > pay $4/month and quit whenever I'm done with it?
> >
>
> Or get freeware/FLOSS and pay nothing and have no ads. And there's
> ad-supported desktop software too, so with desktop software you can go
> either way. Web apps can't go either way, because there's always the
> possibility the owner will pull the plug, and even if they don't, the
> ownser
> will still have server expenses which will have to get paid somehow.
>
> >>
> >>  - worse privacy (do I want some Mark SuckerBerg to spy on my personal
> >> life for personal gain)
> >>
> >
> > Same issues with applications you install on your computer.  Perhaps they
> > are worse in that case, since so many people have so many problems with
> > malware, spyware, worms and viruses.
> >
>
> With my own computer, there are things I can do to prevent that. With
> webapps I'm 100% reliant on someone else: there isn't a damn thing I can
> do.
>
> >>
> >>  - worse security (a networkless local box IS quite safe, if CIA is
> >> raiding your house every week, you're probably doing something wrong,
> >> otherwise, buy better locks)
> >>
> >
> > Javascript+browser can be a purely client-machine application too just
> > like
> > D or Java or C
> >
>
> Yes, but what would be the point? It would be all downsides and no upsides.
> If you're going to have a local app it may as well be
> D/Java/C/Python/whatever.
>
> >>
> >>  - worse performance (at least now and in the next few years)
> >>
> >
> > Yes.  But if you take frame rates in games, which is a terrible example
> > for
> > javascript, the more general truth is that beyond a certain point,
> > performance differences are undetectable to the human eye.
>
> Which the vast majority of JS web apps are nowhere remotely near.
>
> > At which point,
> > the only thing driving your technology choice is developer productivity.
>
> Which once again is a big vote *against* web-browser-as-a-platform.
>
> >>
> >>  - worse usability
> >>
> >
> > Completely disagree.  Desktop apps right now have an enormous advantage
> in
> > how much development-hours have gone into them over web app counterparts.
> > This will change, quickly.
> >
>
> I've been hearing that for a long time. Still waiting. In the meantime, the
> only changes I've seen have been for the worse.
>
> >>
> >> I know the good sides. No need to mention them. In my opinion the
> >> downsides are still more important when making the decision.
> >>
> >
> > Honestly, where do think things will stand 5-10 years from now?
> >
>
> I shudder to even think...Nowhere good considering the directions things
> are
> moving.
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20101215/f73554b0/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list