Well I cannot argue that I can talk for the entire coding field. The field I am working on are 3d graphics, 2d graphics and audio / music. So when I posted my opinion it was largely based on my personal needs and expectations. I should have said "I don't believe that web is my future".
3d graphics wise, desktop not only is light years ahead any web technology out there but it also moves in warp speed. The progress in opengl , directX and graphic cards is just phenomenal. With the latest CUDA technology a graphic card can be even 100 times faster than a CPU , and this accelaration is no longer specialized on graphics alone , making this acceleration ideal for many different kinds of computation (but not all). The best library, web wise, so far is webgl which is a port of opengl es 2 to the web and very reliant on it. Webgl support is still messy across browser and the speed is still a joke even compared to some of the slowest modern desktops (even 10 years old desktops). So 3d department is pretty much non existent web wise. If you take a look to many so called "3d browser games" you will find out that they are not browser games at all and they are very much reliant on desktop they run on like QuakeLive. iPhone wise, it uses also opengl es 2 which is a cut down version of opengl 4 so again its desktop technology repackaged and re-marketed under a different name. Audio synthesis and music wise, there is some midi support for JS and some audio synthesis engines, but nothing nowhere close to what desktop has to offer in terms of products and libraries. Again iPhone seems to have quite a lot of music apps , but once again most of them are just small ports of desktop apps and they are extremely limited. Of course iPhone has a very small relation to web development per se since its pretty much close related to the same tools and libraries as the macos desktop. Of course the problem is that two fields I am touching here graphics and music are very dependent on processing power and execution speed , not ideal for either mobile development or web development. But still both are extremely popular fields, that guarantee the success of desktop for eons to come. I do understand however that other fields of coding are much easier to bring to the web and maybe to a degree this transition already has happened. But I cant feel qualified to talk about coding fields that I am not familiar with. Saying that there is a boom in game market concerning the mobile market with iOS and Android, again those are not web fields and still very reliant to desktop technology. The issues with those fields is that they boom because of the low cost of the devices and the games themselves but the graphic quality they offer is much lower to such extend that I dont think they pose any threat to pc and console game market. ________________________________ From: Eliot Miranda <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, 16 October 2012, 21:44 Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] A trend and an unfair comparison about js everywhere On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:55 AM, dimitris chloupis <[email protected]> wrote: Frankly , I don't find web development that much useful and certainly don't believe that web is the future. My money is on the desktop. > I wouldn't put your money on the desktop. While reports of the desktop's demise are premature, it's no longer growing. The desktop is alive and well but in a niche. The future (actually the present) is on the smart phone, or embedded in almost anything. We may spend or time in front of a desktop but the world is watching, touching, feeling, listening and speaking to their phone. The phone however is a mobile device and hence it needs the internet and the web is the internet's gui, at least its non-proprietary gui (iTunes, appStore et al being the proprietary guis). The iPhone shows that framework is more important than programming language, and that js isn't necessarily important for mobile, but it is considered neutral compared to e.g. flash. > >The very fact that the most popular web app, by far nowdays is facebook and >the very fact that if you took facebook out today people would lose nothing in >practicality tells so much about what web is all about. Web is not all bad of >course, its still without any doubt the library of Alexandria but most of it , >its just pointless way of killing your free time. > > > >The trend is to push web to the desktop and I think that has been proven a >very bad idea. Web technology is based on some very bad design decisions and >it makes me laugh when technologies like node.js take the web world by storm >when desktop has similar technologies for far too long. > > > >If you looks carefully you will also see that Desktop is more and more pushing >to the web, so for me it looks like web development is not going to have much >of a chance. Many existing programming languages are already compiling to js, >but even in that case why even bother ? IT makes sense for mobile devices , >but what will happen if for example pharo and squeak start making ports for >those mobile devices . Why bother with JS at all ? > > > >I try to make a visual coding project and I did consider amber and some js >libraries and to my surprise the only dynamic graphic library I found of some >serious usefulness was processing.js and its just too slow for what I want to >achieve. And if you think about all those so called web technologies are >really sandboxed , limited and slow desktop technologies. > > > >I still find the fact that a browser can run anywhere extremely tempting but >in the end I dont think its really worth it. And yes I disagree with the video >of trying to say that web is like electricity. When electricity came out there >was nothing like it, with the web its very diffirent because not only desktop >can do many of the things that web can , all web technologies are practically >desktop technologies. Also even if you take a look at how much Desktop has >progressed 10 years and how much the web , even though the web is super hyped >those past 10 years you will get a very clear picture of how things really >are. > > > >I dont think squeak or pharo should turn their backs to the web technologies , >js and all others (and I love the fact that projects like amber do exist) but >I would prefer if more effort is spent on making sure that they work on all >platforms equally good. > > >From where I am standing there is no competitiveness in usefulness when it >comes to JS and web technology there is just competitiveness in popularity and >hype. And I would rather prefer if pharo and squeak dont play that game and >continue being actually useful , innovative , easy to use , technologies. Web >is certainly tempting but in the end its an empty promise. > > > > >________________________________ > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Monday, 15 October 2012, 23:02 >Subject: [Pharo-project] A trend and an unfair comparison about js everywhere > > >Hi guys, > >all comparisons are unfair I know but this is only to make you guy aware of >this (please ignore if you're already). > >Here is the thing: > >The Jeff Bezos' Electricity Metaphor: >http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_bezos_on_the_next_web_innovation.html > > >Makes (probably) any smalltalker remember the Alan Kay's talk about having in >the internet an IP for every object and spectacular computer science ideas >like that. > >The js everywhere trend makes a lot of sense. Once it achieves critical mass >it might tempt intel and friends to do some hardware accelerator for js VM's. >Who knows. We have a long way to go but, in the meantime, all js staked frameworks make a lot of sense and WILL get traction because of that. Example: > >http://www.wakanda.org/ > >A talk here: >https://vimeo.com/31603156 > >So.. the unfair question here would be: > >What we'll have to match that competitiveness? > >sebastian > >o/ > >PS: Pharo + WebSockets + Amber sounds in that line doesn't? > > > > -- best, Eliot
