On Wednesday 27 January 2010 14:40:37 Klaas Freitag wrote: > All progress we did with object orientation over the years, with patterns > for example is thrown away with Javascript. Instead we return into dark > times without versioned libraries for example which don't provide real > interfaces. Well, ok, I know, Rails for example is really going into the > right direction, but still: Behind that we often stumble through a dark > swamp of Javascript. Or who here in the audience has ever fixed a bug in > jquery for example?
This is not really the case. Google is using the GWT for their applications to leverage all the Java knowledge they have internally. The developers code using standard UI widgets, standard event patterns and the toolkit vomits the necessary javascript from there. Javascript and html are still the assembler of the web. And if everyone is using it is because, compared with assembler, almost everyone can do html and js. > Noone would argue that we have great alternatives on the desktop. With > todays Qt or GTK toolkits nobody would go on a stage and show the "canvas > example" because it is laughable to ask for applause for drawing a line on > a canvas. Thats standard for years, using the device specific benefits > like acceleration. Speaking about cross platform, yeah, you probably know > that the browsers, in which one plays the Javascript are implemented with > one of these toolkits, so what is really portable? I don't think the browser technology is what at least excites me. But the culture generated by the web-world: - apps is always server side, so user gets the latest improvements without install. This allow for a continuous flow of features. Basic of agility. - designers are part of the process! somebody takes care that stuff looks great If you compare the usability of new web apps, usually you can't even remotely compare them with desktop applications. Qt is a success as a enablement piece, but there were few or none Qt applications developed with a designer that took care of the colors, and a UX guy that made the app a joy to use. Most desktop apps are still designed by developers. Web apps too, but the trend is in the opposite direction. > I claim that the only reason why people really want webapps is: They are > fed up with installing stuff. Installing and updating stuff on a machine > is pain, early windows versions did a great job to poison all computer > users with the software-install-does-not-really-work trauma. But wait, > browsers still need to be installed locally. But that is not so bad as > they have these neat feature that you only have to click "ok" if it tells > you that its already old and can be replaced. No. I am also fed up with mobility. I want to have my stuff elsewhere so I can turn on a device and see my stuff. > All I am wondering about: I thought WE are the experts in software > management? I know we have really great tools for that. So we have all > bits and peaces together to make it completely easy and enjoyable for > users to update their desktop (or personal device) software. We are not > yet there, which I could experience with Fate for example where people > always complained when they were asked to update. Fate was not asking "Do > you want me to quickly upgrade myself?" because it was not easy to > implement. I think we could make these kind of things easy, if we would > investigate in that, rather than in latest web stuff. Why people should update their desktops? See http://dev.chromium.org/chromium-os/chromiumos-design-docs/filesystem- autoupdate That is exactly why people wants more webapps. We still assume people want to do such decisions. If you make people do choices about their system, you are effectively turning them into sysadmins. > BTW, please do not associate desktop software with "not using the cloud" or > internet or so. Everything is possible of course. I also believe that the desktop has a role in the web world. I dont think everything will be in browser. KDE is going in the right direction, thanks that Qt also is doing that. The desktop will be a custom view of the web. > Please also be sure to check out for example > http://labs.trolltech.com/blogs/2009/05/13/qt-declarative-ui/ > and see how little code is needed to do really breathtaking UIs with todays > (gui) toolkits. How long will Javascript need to catch up? Yes, I know, you > can have Win3.11 in Javascript - but who really is asking for ? ;-) I tend to agree here. But all this technology will be used to consume web content. As I said, most iPhone/Android apps are still native apps that give a nice user interface to web content. That is why we have web services and not only html. I think the "pure html" vision is flawed, as all extreme visions are. -- Duncan Mac-Vicar P. - Novell® Making IT Work As One™ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
