[HN Gopher] The baseline for web development in 2022
___________________________________________________________________
The baseline for web development in 2022
Author : benwerd
Score : 55 points
Date : 2022-01-27 20:22 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (engineering.linecorp.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (engineering.linecorp.com)
| dmm wrote:
| > but none were as big as the official retirement of Internet
| Explorer (IE)
|
| How many years does Firefox have left?
| mcdonje wrote:
| Hopefully a lot!
| darklion wrote:
| > number of web standards only Safari hasn't implemented is many
| times bigger than those of Firefox and Chrome
|
| Is that _actual_ web standards, or just what is listed on
| caniuse.com? The reason I ask is that a lot of "standards"
| aren't actually standards:
|
| Service workers are not yet a standard: "This is a living
| document. Readers need to be aware that this specification may
| include unimplemented features, and details that may change.
| Service Workers 1 is a version that is advancing toward a W3C
| Recommendation." (https://w3c.github.io/ServiceWorker/)
|
| Web Application Manifest is not yet a standard: "This document
| was published by the Web Applications Working Group as a Working
| Draft using the Recommendation track.
|
| Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by W3C
| and its Members." (https://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest/)
|
| Background sync is not a standard: "This specification was
| published by the Web Platform Incubator Community Group. It is
| not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track."
| (https://wicg.github.io/background-sync/spec/)
|
| Cookie store is not a standard: "This specification was published
| by the Web Platform Incubator Community Group. It is not a W3C
| Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track."
| (https://wicg.github.io/cookie-store/)
|
| Streams is not a standard, it's just a specification: "This
| specification provides APIs for creating, composing, and
| consuming streams of data that map efficiently to low-level I/O
| primitives." (https://streams.spec.whatwg.org)
|
| So does Safari suck because it's not supporting _actual_
| standards, or does it only suck in comparison to Chrome because
| Chrome is willing to implement technologies that aren 't
| finalized standards and technologies that aren't even on a
| standards track?
| conradfr wrote:
| Safari sucks because it's only available on macOS.
|
| It's really annoying when doing web development, especially as
| that's actually the browser that has the most chance to act
| different from the others.
| irrational wrote:
| And iOS also. At least on macOS I can use any other browser.
| On iOS I can only use Safari (either directly or under the
| hood).
| aspenmayer wrote:
| You can download Safari for Windows. I don't know why you
| would, but you could.
| recursive wrote:
| No. You cannot. You would do it to test on Safari. Except
| you cannot.
|
| > Apple no longer offers Safari updates for Windows. Safari
| 5.1.7 for Windows was the last version made for Windows,
| and it is now outdated.
|
| https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204416
|
| I have a MacBook sitting on my desk that I only ever use to
| test something in Safari.
| Eric_WVGG wrote:
| Not impossible to compile WebKit for other platforms, but
| sounds hairy. https://schepp.dev/posts/running-webkit-on-
| windows/
| linopolus wrote:
| You could just use Steam, afaik they're still using WebKit
| and you probably have it installed anyway ;)
|
| Or another WebKit based browser (ok, not so many):
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers#WebKit-
| ba...
| danaris wrote:
| Or, to take it a step further (and in a slightly different
| perspective):
|
| Does Safari suck because it's not supporting _actual_
| standards, or does Chrome suck because it 's trying to make
| sure that the web only works on Chrome, like Microsoft did with
| IE 20+ years ago?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _Does Safari suck because it 's not supporting actual
| standards, or does Chrome suck because it's trying to make
| sure that the web only works on Chrome_
|
| This is a weird argument when Firefox supports many of the
| standards that Safari doesn't, as well.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Mostly because it is the only way to still be relevant, and
| as the charts prove it is not doing a great job at it.
| Typing this from FF by the way.
| mrtksn wrote:
| It's not really weird at all, that's actually what happened
| with IE. It wasn't that IE was lacking but people used it
| anyway, IE was doing really cool stuff but in it's own way.
|
| AJAX is one example, IE introduced XMLHttpRequest back then
| and it took 15 years to become a standart. So people built
| their cool websites around IE features that were not
| actually standards and once Microsoft screwed up IE people
| found out that you can't switch to alternative browsers
| because websites were built to support IE.
|
| As the IE experience degraded(has become famous for
| crashing and taking the OS with it) and there was a room
| for improvement, Netscape become Mozilla and they
| introduced actually good browser that later will become
| Firefox but because most people used UI, web developers had
| to accommodate IE by writing IE specific code everywhere.
| That's where the hate for IE comes from, it wasn't fanboys
| hating IE, it was developers hating IE because they had to
| write extra code all the time.
|
| Firefox may support some Chrome features but how sure you
| are that Google will keep making a good browser? For many,
| Chrome is already a degraded experience for what it was and
| it is actually very nasty in favouring Google properties
| and tracking that can be a disaster if switching away from
| Chrome becomes as hard as it was with IE.
| darklion wrote:
| Or is Firefox willing to compromise on more technologies
| that aren't yet standardized than WebKit is?
|
| Without knowing whether the "standards" being tested are
| _actually_ standards, it 's impossible to know.
| imachine1980_ wrote:
| not some of the tools are propose or standard some of
| then from Mozilla foundations and try to be implemented
| safari tend to implement standard a lot more slow than
| the other because this isn't the core business, and let
| browsers do more things and you don't need to use the app
| store.
| gmiller123456 wrote:
| More like Safari sucks because Apple wants people to buy
| native apps from its store. A lot like Microsoft wanting the
| web to suck so people would buy Windows apps instead. It's
| not a super secret conspiracy that requires inside knowledge
| and a network of spies to figure out.
| giantrobot wrote:
| This is such a lame argument. You _want_ it to be true but
| have no evidence that it actually is true.
|
| A lot of the Chrome team's "standards" have problems with
| accessibility, workability on mobile, security[0],
| privacy[1], or just battery life. Some are neat experiments
| that are or only will be used in the wild by advertisers to
| track and identify users.
|
| Because the Safari/WebKit team doesn't have to chase users
| for revenue like Mozilla does they can afford to be more
| conservative with what Google "standards" they support.
| Being able to offer a tighter privacy posture or efficiency
| is part of the iOS/macOS sales pitch.
|
| [0] https://github.com/WICG/webusb/issues/50
|
| [1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/16/22387492/google-
| floc-ad-t...
| smorgusofborg wrote:
| It is pretty funny to defend Apple (or any other browser
| vendor) using the argument that standards are unfinalized.
| Running living standards was the coup done by WHATWG, a.k.a.
| browser vendors.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe] from yesterday
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30093502
| [deleted]
| pvg wrote:
| It's only an HN-dupe if it has some non-trivial amount of HN
| comments.
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| fairplay, I just dunno how it gets resubmitted over when the
| orig post is right there with upvotes
| timetraveller26 wrote:
| It seems that Vue has some points in its favor over React in
| terms of speed, despite React's finner control over reactivity.
|
| In the article they associate that with React's internals, but I
| wonder if also their philosophy to leverage the developer to
| trigger reactivity makes it easy to generate inefficient code,
| and in that case it may be that Vue's reactivity model has it's
| perks after all.
| netr0ute wrote:
| Why make it so complicated? Just assume everyone has a 2G
| connection (you don't see them because of a demographics problem,
| but 2G users are out there) and make sure all static information
| is accessible without JS. Don't think about web browser compat at
| all because that's a software problem which costs nothing to fix
| on the user end, while 2G and slow processors are hardware
| problems which cost a lot to fix.
| krono wrote:
| Don't worry, we're slowly circling back to servers pushing out
| fully pre-rendered pages that don't require any scripts - or
| make it more convenient to create those, anyway. React's
| upcoming server-side components will likely be a very popular
| solution for achieving this.
|
| It's like PHP but this time in JavaScript.
| agumonkey wrote:
| > PHP but this time in JavaScript
|
| a sizeable improvement maybe, also does using the same
| language on both side a pro or a con ? real question
| krono wrote:
| For the vast majority of projects it certainly means faster
| development and far lower production cost.
| seumars wrote:
| It's disappointing to see that the consensus among frontend
| devs is to just sit and wait for a new API from react to do
| all the work. Every framework out there has simple methods
| for rendering a component to string which can be returned to
| the client.
| tomphoolery wrote:
| Trust me, no one who's actually working on this in the real
| world is banking on React's upcoming APIs for this at all.
|
| Suspense is _still_ not done, and it 's been over 4 years.
| Server components aren't happening anytime soon IMO. The
| only reason why I think this year is still tenable is
| because Vercel ate up all the React devs who can contribute
| to such a task.
|
| Most JS devs I've talked to or work with are writing code
| based on what we have now.
| krono wrote:
| To be fair, React's work is the most likely
| implementation of this concept for people to have heard
| about before. They've been talking about it for years,
| after all :)
|
| You're either vastly underestimating the number of
| developers at that skill level, or overestimating the
| number of those devs you or I might ever have even heard
| of.
| netr0ute wrote:
| If I can't use an adblocker on it then count me out.
| datavirtue wrote:
| Thank the gods.
| Dma54rhs wrote:
| The jsx soup already reminds me hacking php and html together
| with each other, truly back to the roots :)
| golergka wrote:
| How are going to build something like Figma with these
| constraints?
| netr0ute wrote:
| Why does anyone NEED Figma?
| golergka wrote:
| Depends on your definition of "need". But most people I
| know that use it enjoy it a lot, and especially
| collaboration features that they didn't have in desktop
| software.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| For the past 1.5 years I've been working on apps for the
| agriculture industry, mostly in Australia.
|
| This means 2G, slow 3G or satellite using customers are
| extremely common. No G too, if they're using your product out
| in the field. I myself lived 30 minutes drive from a mobile
| connection in 2021. A sheep literally ate my internet by
| chewing through the cable from the satellite to the house.
|
| So those users definitely exist in my demographic. And very
| much in the demographic of my clients, as potential customers.
|
| Still, it seems to be a hard sell to make things work with crap
| connections or offline. First off, frontend devs resist because
| you're taking away their favourite toys. (Very rational from
| their perspective - their next gig is probably in banking or
| retail or somewhere else with ubiquitous fast internet). Second
| off, those allocating budgets are very hesitant to spend money
| on any software dev out of the mainstream. From their
| perspective software is risky enough given its expense, let
| alone doing something that might require specialists. (This may
| be more of an Australian thing, they're not risk takers like
| Americans).
|
| So yes, you're very right on a technical level. I'm with you,
| and would love to talk to others who see this. On a more
| practical level - it's hard to make the stars align, even if it
| will land you customers.
| agumonkey wrote:
| Do you ever write articles / blog entries about this ? I love
| frugal programming (and it seems there's some people
| interested in that too). You're experience is pretty telling.
| xvector wrote:
| Also, these customers are likely unprofitable to monetize.
| The cost for a single SWE likely exceeds the incomes of the
| whole town a few times over.
| giantrobot wrote:
| > Also, these customers are likely unprofitable to
| monetize.
|
| I don't see why you think this would be the case. A friend
| of mine lives down in Gilroy, CA (south of the San Jose) in
| a veritable mansion. He and his wife have done very well
| for themselves. Because they chose land over some SF row
| house their only internet access is a spotty 4G connection
| that really acts like a spotty 2G connection much of the
| time. No ISP is willing to run a landline out where he
| lives and WISPs aren't much better than the 4G. He's
| definitely not the only monied person with shitty Internet
| access.
|
| Lost 2G users don't necessarily have 2G (or equivalent)
| connections all the time. There's plenty of places or times
| where 4G gets congested and performs terribly even when the
| end users have high end devices and nominally good
| connections. A lost sale because someone couldn't complete
| a form because of poor coverage on the subway is a lost
| sale.
|
| Mobile Internet should never be expected to be some fixed
| value for any user. Someone with a brand new iPhone on a
| network with great 5G coverage can still be standing behind
| a lamppost or something and get 2G levels of network
| performance. Since an overwhelming percentage of web
| traffic is from mobile it doesn't make sense to not degrade
| gracefully in poor network conditions or just minimize
| resource use.
| netr0ute wrote:
| What about if it's all unpaid? FOSS is a thing, after all.
| Lamad123 wrote:
| You are a 2G user when you most need the Internet. Just drive
| in parts of New York state or Northeastern Pennsylvania (I
| mention these two states because they are not remote empty
| rectangles like Idaho or Utah).
| bitwize wrote:
| 2G and 3G are going away soon, it's LTE/5G or GTFO.
| nicbou wrote:
| Not in the Berlin U-Bahn, or on German intercity trains. Not
| in large swathes of rural land. Not for people who ran out of
| data, but still need to Google stuff.
| bitwize wrote:
| In the USA, the major telcos are shutting off their 2G and
| 3G towers, _this year_ -- after which if you are not
| reachable with LTE or 5G, you will simply have no service.
| netr0ute wrote:
| That doesn't account for private stations or congested
| areas where the service is technically 4G or WiFi, but
| you get 2G speeds.
| netr0ute wrote:
| > 2G and 3G are going away soon
|
| Only in the most developed countries, as places like Bolivia
| are still hanging on to 2G. You just don't hear about those
| places because of that demographics problem, so people assume
| 4G/5G are all that's out there.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| How many companies are targeting their primary use case in
| Bolivia?
| netr0ute wrote:
| Probably not many, but there are two good
| counterarguments to that. The first is because that
| "primary use case" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If
| Some Company isn't intentionally targeting places like
| Bolivia and instead feeds Big Macs to their website, then
| people in Bolivia could never discover Some Company's
| website because of its bloat. Because people can't
| discover it, Some Company never knows that it could
| target those people. The second is that not all websites
| are to promote some product or company, but only provide
| information. Information usually isn't country-specific,
| so ignoring the 2G demographic leaves them in the dust.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Bolivian companies I guess, duh.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| Hmm... at this point, someone with an entrepreneurial
| bent should probably be asking him- or herself "Just how
| much money is lying on the table in places like Bolivia?"
|
| Wikipedia tells me that Bolivia has a GDP (PPP) of
| $89.018 billion, and there are a bunch of countries like
| Bolivia.
| dudeman13 wrote:
| If Bolivia is like sweet home, that money is concentraded
| as fuck so either their schtick would have to be
| ubiquitous for it to be worth it, or they would be
| selling to the ~10% richest in Bolivia (which probably
| have decent internet access).
|
| For all that people sometimes go on about untapped market
| potential in poor countries, it _really_ isn 't that easy
| when >90% of the population lives on less than 350
| USD/month.
|
| Sauce: spent the first 1/4 of century of my life living
| in a third world shithole.
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| Is that the right question to ask? Shouldn't we rather
| ask: how many companies care about users in Bolivia at
| all?
| it_citizen wrote:
| So what? With that line of reasoning, very few websites
| should care about accessibility for people with
| disabilities.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| Well, this line of reasoning is why accessibility is
| federally required. It's something that most companies
| explicitly do not care about.
| irrational wrote:
| Is Safari on MacOS and Safari on iOS the same? I'm confused when
| it says things like Safari is the new web baseline, but I'm not
| sure which version it means. I would think Safari on iOS would be
| more important than Safari on desktop. Everyone that has an iOS
| device is using Safari (whether directly or under the hood),
| while I'm not sure I've ever met anyone that uses Safari on
| desktop (other than to download a different browser).
| Eric_WVGG wrote:
| way over 95% the same
|
| > not sure I've ever met anyone that uses Safari on desktop
|
| Odd conversation starter, I certainly haven't polled most of my
| acquaintances. The ones who have nerd-ish leanings
| overwhelmingly use it, though, as Chrome is a crapfire for
| laptop batteries and privacy.
| DenseComet wrote:
| Yep. I use Firefox when my laptop is docked and Safari the
| rest of the time. It might not matter for the M1 laptops, but
| with Intel, the difference in battery life is extremely
| noticeable.
| Eric_WVGG wrote:
| It definitely matters for M1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/
| brookecrothers/2021/02/21/this-...
| msoad wrote:
| The most surprising chart was how large bundle sizes are when
| using React to build components.
| golergka wrote:
| That graph is data from real websites, right?
|
| So it might be selection bias: sites with logic requirements,
| app like, tend to use React, when simplest static websites
| don't have any reason to.
| [deleted]
| solidr53 wrote:
| It's also the most popular framework. With popularity the
| overhead of inexperienced developers npm installing everything
| starts to show.
| blux wrote:
| To me it's surprising and unsettling to see how small the market
| share of Firefox has become.
| forbiddenvoid wrote:
| Why is that surprising? Firefox doesn't have a narrative that's
| compelling for the typical user and I'm not sure it's ever had
| one that was really viable. 'Not-google' really isn't good
| enough for the average user, and no amount of 'we care about
| your privacy' is going to convince the common user that Mozilla
| _does_, in fact, care about their privacy.
|
| The reality is that most typical users care about their privacy
| a lot less than we might expect or want. That's probably not a
| great sign for society in general, but I think it's the truth.
| brimble wrote:
| They needed to differentiate themselves years ago. The value
| prop in the early days was "very light & fast, blocks popups,
| has tabs, is totally free with no ads". It was a no-brainer
| to install it on every barely-technical relative's computer a
| nerd could get their hands on. The only thing that approached
| it and wasn't _incredibly_ obscure was Opera, and that either
| cost money or displayed ads.
|
| FF is no longer "very light & fast" (it may no longer be
| possible to attain that and actually support modern web
| browsing--Safari is the only mainstream browser that's even
| close, AFAIK) and does have ads. Their various interface
| redesigns have made it confusing as hell to my parents. Old-
| school popups are handled well enough by ~every browser and
| they just about all use tabs and have for over a decade.
| Meanwhile they've added... what? To differentiate them?
| Plugins. But now those are the same as Chrome's. Very good
| dev tools--but now those are available elsewhere, too.
|
| They needed to go all-in on something radical years ago to
| have a long-term shot at relevance. Decentralized social
| networking or chat built-in to the browser. Aggressive built-
| in ad blocking & unique user-empowering controls. More, not
| fewer, non-HTTP Internet protocols built in. _Something_. And
| clearly not Pocket.
|
| Now I don't think their market share's big enough for even
| something like that that to save them. In fact now it'd
| likely just kill them even faster.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _FF is no longer "very light & fast"_
|
| I beg to differ. It's certainly faster and uses less
| resources than even Ungoogled Chromium on the same machine.
| irrational wrote:
| > Firefox doesn't have a narrative that's compelling for the
| typical user
|
| Firefox doesn't sell you off to the highest bidder?
| linopolus wrote:
| Oh, they absolutely do, like 90% of the funding for Mozilla
| comes from Google.
| irrational wrote:
| Google just does that so they don't get broken up. But
| that doesn't mean Firefox is sending your data to Google.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Hypothetically:
|
| I don't care to burn calories on being an "activist." I just
| want to visit the sites I visit and get on with my life.
|
| Sell me on Firefox.
| imachine1980_ wrote:
| Firefox is sometime a good tool to have for webdev, in some
| case Firefox(desktop)(i think i need to us a camera) work
| more similar than chrome(desktop) in comparison too
| chrome(android), i will totally pay money for a tool-set web
| development of quality but as browser most advance things use
| some quirks of chromium to work, isnt as secure as other
| people say you need to twist thing here and there and
| download extensions, in general is more worth use brave, if
| you really want to have control use librewolf.net is a fork
| of Firefox focus on privacy and work out of the box
| irrational wrote:
| It works great (in my experience) and doesn't sell your
| privacy to the highest bidder.
| tejtm wrote:
| Use Firefox and if a site does not work just move on with
| your life. It passively improves our future to squander our
| attention on the less egregious actors.
| datavirtue wrote:
| "over-dependence on JavaScript are hindering our sites'
| performance"
|
| Hmmm...going to need a citation on that one. The most severe
| energy and performance hog I have seen are the tracking "pixels."
| I loath that shit. It brings a site to it's gnees and barfs out
| twenty requests to Facebook every time someone touches something.
| These tracking services and cookies are the worst abomination
| literally ruining the web.
| netr0ute wrote:
| > going to need a citation on that one
|
| > It brings a site to it's gnees and barfs out twenty requests
| to Facebook every time someone touches something
|
| Does not compute
| superkuh wrote:
| >Safari is the baseline in terms of web standards: The sites we
| develop must work in Safari versions at least 2 years old.
|
| How can anything work reliably when software's lifetime is less
| than the time I can store meat in my freezer? Future shock has
| hit the software world hard and nowhere harder than on the web. I
| can understand the financial motivations for for-profit
| businesses and why they behave this way. And I know that's not
| going to change.
|
| But as people, as human people and not just an employee fufilling
| a corporate person's goals, we can write, support, and use
| software for far longer than 2 years and we should.
| ubercow13 wrote:
| Who is using a browser build that is more than 2 years old on
| the open web? Is that a sensible enough use case that it should
| be supported?
| superkuh wrote:
| I do and it's perfectly sensible as a human person. It's just
| not a sensible design your business around people like me to
| make a profit, usually. That said, businesses that actually
| want to take your money and aren't just selling _you_ do tend
| to support very old browsers. For example, I can use my
| browser from 2016 to browse and buy things from Amazon.com
| very easily. Even with JS disabled.
| shaunpersad wrote:
| That's not sensible from a security perspective at all.
| nicbou wrote:
| I follow a different set of criteria for my content-based
| website. Some are stricter, and some are more relaxed:
|
| - It must be readable on the shittiest monitor money can buy
|
| - It must be readable at night without straining the eyes
|
| - It must be understandable by non-native English speakers
|
| - It must load quickly even in the Berlin U-Bahn (underground
| train)
|
| - It must work fine with the strictest ad blockers
|
| - It must work fine with JavaScript turned off
|
| - It must be respectful of people's data plans
|
| - It must work in Reader Mode, in Pocket, or as a printed
| document
|
| - It must work in any reasonably modern web browser
|
| Web developers tend to forget that many people access the web
| from places with poor reception, on cheap devices, with poor
| eyesight, and with ad blockers.
| sharps_xp wrote:
| who are the groups of people actively turning off JS?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| I open a lot of tabs and my battery would die within a couple
| of hours if I left JS on.
| papito wrote:
| It's like turning your car's engine off because that uses
| fuel.
| Isognoviastoma wrote:
| It's like turning your car's engine off _overnight_
| because that uses fuel.
| linopolus wrote:
| The engine is HTML. No more is needed to give me the
| information I want, though CSS and images are certainly
| nice. JS would be more like the infotainment system:
| Sometimes nice, sometimes annoying, sometimes dangerous.
| VectorLock wrote:
| Idle-stop is (annoyingly) a thing, now.
| nicbou wrote:
| I honestly don't know. They're overrepresented on Hacker News
| for sure.
|
| However my website is just text on a page and I see no reason
| for it to break when JS is turned off. Only the calculators
| and other widget will stop working.
| ozim wrote:
| I think you are onto something but you are following with wrong
| conclusion.
|
| Web developers don't forget about those people - it is
| businesses that forget about those people.
|
| Those people are a niche and probably a niche that is not
| profitable catering to.
|
| So they are excluded from the internet by a lot of companies.
| If there would be enough money to be made, a lot of web
| applications would have at lest 50% of those requirements
| implemented already.
| nicbou wrote:
| I wouldn't say so. Designers tend to forget about low
| contrast screens. Developers tend to take liberties with
| bandwidth and CPU usage.
|
| I see those things as part of the craft.
| [deleted]
| awinter-py wrote:
| unsurprisingly jekyll remains the most performant option for
| frontend JS in 2022
| MrYellowP wrote:
| I know it's a low quality comment, but from an outside
| perspective I gotta say that modern web development is a massive
| sack of bullshit.
|
| I've coded a 3D Map for EVE ONLINE in JavaScript, running in the
| browser, and a friend gave me compliments for it being so
| responsive, while I was amazed about how that's even worth
| recognizing.
|
| On that day I've learned that people require using libraries for
| being able to pretend they don't suck. I've learned that most
| people, who code for the browser side of things, actually have -
| at best - only shallow understanding of what they're actually
| doing.
|
| ...... yeah, I know. Sorry, but not really.
| linopolus wrote:
| To say it the other way round: Use HTML/CSS for information
| purposes (JS where needed, nice explanatory animations etc), get
| back to using real nice native code for applications, using the
| OSes capabilities to the fullest, providing an experience
| integrated with the rest of the OS, having full performance.
| ng12 wrote:
| Pretty much a non-starter. If you're selling a desktop app and
| your competitor is a browser-based SaaS you will lose every
| time. It's one of the rare things both end-users and IT will
| agree on.
| pjmlp wrote:
| IT will gladly put those native applications available via
| Citrix/RDP, no biggie.
| jamil7 wrote:
| Anecdotally we're able to differentiate ourselves by offering
| a native mac app over what our competitors offer but it's a
| niche, mac-heavy industry.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-27 23:02 UTC)