I disagree, i think people are constantly asking the "better" question. The amount of times I've personally had to sit in meetings and watch folks be paralysed by breadth vs depth when it comes to mobility is the answer & question unfolding.
They want the full reach of the web but they also inherently understand there are some shortfalls with reach so they go for depth but that also means higher dev costs than they have. In that if they have 3-4 teams of .NET coders and they want to target iOS/Android then they either suck it up and try and do a responsive web edition of their solution hoping that pays off (many large brands have died on that cross to be fair) or they double down on a team of native developers and somehow make them work internally or externally. The questions are being asked just not in a open & deliberate manner and that's all that JS offers here is that "ooh look i can write once do it everywhere and just keep these breakpoints thingies happening"... It could work for a lot of basic solutions no doubt - but - you also sacrifice depth, and that's where the context matters fits. I could cite examples on both sides of the isle here on pro's and con's of doing both, but i'd argue that if the devs had the choice over ECMA 6, CSS3 and HTML5 vs ECMA 3x, CSS2 and HTML5 ...i'd probably guess what the $100 spends would bring back, that is better typescript style language support which would ideally compliment their practices and behaviours today (plus tooling could probably lock onto better more focused patterns of code). If you can argue (or anyone) that breadth has no factoring into the JavaScript as a nominated "answer" then I'd be curious to see how you avoid that subject. It has to be the driver behind its adoption. --- Regards, Scott Barnes http://www.riagenic.com On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 1:28 PM, David Connors <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 at 12:22 Scott Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > >> RE: bloat. >> > > [ ... ] > > I look at rendering pipelines like Unity3D and i can see we're not close >> to being done as if you look at that approach they have quite an elegant >> and well thought out approach to x-compile for 2D/3D rendering but they >> lack the "frameworks" to make it work in both tooling and language >> compositions. You then look at Xamarin and they too are playing along the >> same lines of thought so i simply can't abide by the idea that "JavaScript" >> is the best idea of the day still... i think its a retreat position on a >> number of fronts more filled with confusion and lack of OO discipline or >> maybe thats the problem, there's far too much OO complexity now? >> > > The very concept of 'done'ness is a hang over from when IT used to be a > monoculture based around Windows. We all used to gravitate to one way of > doing this and moved on herd-like to something else when it was passed > down. > > Whether Unity3D or Xamarin or Javascript is *better *is not the question > people ask any more. > > Hell, go look at WeChat and the economics behind that. One might even ask > if we'll be writing apps on the Internet in a few years or whether it will > just evolve into a low value way of shuffling bits around between other > people's walled-gardens. > > > -- > David Connors > [email protected] | @davidconnors | LinkedIn | +61 417 189 363 >
