Slashdot Mirror
The State of Web 2.0, The Future of Web Software
SphereOfInfluence writes "Despite some disdain for the term Web 2.0, the underlying ideas seem to be genuinely taking off from the seed of successful techniques of the first generation of the Web. Here's an in-depth review of the future of Web 2.0 and online software from Web 2.0 proponent, Dion Hinchcliffe. Like or hate the term, the actual ideas in Web 2.0 are turning out to not only usable but a growing cadre of companies are actively being successful with them. This includes the Ajax phenomenon being actively pursued by Microsoft and Google, widespread social software, and massive online communities like MySpace. These trends are all leading to predictions on the ultimate fallout of these changes, something increasingly called social computing. "
It's just CSS mixed with javascript... is it not?
Meh.
That's what really drives the web technology!
I know you guys don't like buzzwords... so here are a bunch of buzzwords.
This "web 2.0" isn't some massive leap in technology. Nothing really revolutionary has been done to warrant the coining of the term or the implication that it's something new and improved. In the 10 years I've been on the internet, I've watched the slow evolution from barely-useful tool to amazing source of information to social phenomenon. Much of what is being heralded as new and amazing existed in very basic form early on; techniques are simply steadily improving.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
MySpace is not 'Web 2.0'. It's 'GeoCities 2.0' if anything.
The problem with Web 2.0 is that it is nothing more than a marketing term. We've had social networking for decades in the form of Usenet. There hasn't been any major shift in the way we use the internet. At least not one that deserves the 2.0 moniker.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
I read on Saturday that yahoo already bought web 2.0. All of it.
From something I wrote on this subject:
The "killer apps" of tomorrow's mobile infocom industry won't be hardware devices or software programs but social practices. --Howard Rheingold
In his recent essay, Paul Graham pans Web 2.0 because it can't be used to make predictions. Paul is right; the reason is that we have been classing Web 2.0 by its technology instead of its social implications.
Because, really, who gives a shit about technology? I don't care about technology, I care about me. I don't want to know how Web 2.0 will get me AJAX, I want to know how Web 2.0 well get me laid.
When caught in the throes of our meme 2.0 ideations, it should be the social over the technological that inspires. When we do this, not only can we make falsifiable predictions, but we can make actionable business plans and compelling emotional appeals as well.
So if you think it's too late to start a billion dollar AJAX business... You're right. But don't worry; the revolution isn't over, it's barely begun.
For all the talk of CSS and XHTML making content more accessible, I find it funny that color-blind people are brushed under the rug with all the low-contrast designs most of these Web 2.0 sites are sporting.
MS Windows doesn't have X already built in, so the functionality using the lowest common denominator was chosen. I am not making a case for the decision, just explaining the reality. I think you are preaching to the choir when I read what you are saying, but there are plenty of others with different opinions. I have said for years that X should have been the standard that MS used for their windowing, but MS didn't own X, so they settled for creating their own, much-less-useable windowing environment (that at least they owned and could control). Let's all give MS a round of applause for such forward thinking ideals!!! *dead silence*
I must be thick (come guys, tell me), but this article strikes me as falling into the "meaningless bubble diagrams connecting unconnectable things" category. I did like the graphs at the end that give you some numbers on ajax traffic.
But all that other crap? Like (and I quote):
Key Aspects of Web 2.0:
- The Web and all its connected devices as one global platform of reusable services and data
- Data consumption and remixing from all sources, particularly user generated data
- Continuous and seamless update of software and data, often very rapidly
- Rich and interactive user interfaces
- Architecture of participation that encourages user contribution
Good God where does this dross emanate from? These are the engineering principles that bind together Web 2.0 concepts? It's notable that these attributes can also describe a client/server or 3-tier application, if you hold head just right. They could also describe how my grandmother's recipee book worked. Very interactive... encouraged user participation and contribution (that's what the pencil dangling from it was for).
If you're the hard-core engineering type, spare yourself a disorienting tour of pseduo-engineering psycho-babble and skip to the graphs at the end.
Was I too harsh?
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
Each instance of said application is going to consume massive resources (on the server..again not the X server), and is ABSOLUTELY NOT SCALABLE!
As opposed to spawning a new process or thread to handle the HTTP connection? There really isn't much difference. Your criticism might be valid if the world still connected to the internet through ppp. It is not. Considering the explosive growth in high speed networking I think the X solution has finally come of age.
Compare the HTTP architecture with X. You have a few significantly incompatable browsers that are among the most complex programs ever written. There is no steady definition of what these cesspools of code really are. For all that complexity it is remarkable how little they do! HTTP servers are less complex but must be programmed at an absurdly low level. Get into multi-tiered architectures and you have to wonder if people are designing on acid. Page navigation is a huge problem for programs with dynamic content. Those pages are generated inefficiently again and again. Information is typically passed uncompressed across the wire, which is silly.
X client interfaces (GTK/GDK, Xt/Motif, Qt, ...) are amazingly rich and robust. Your programs work perfectly remotely or locally by definition. As a programmer you never see the X protocol, which is as it should be.
Network-wise this is not ideal either as their is a tremendous amount of inefficient bi-directional communication just to click buttons and type in fields.
Bi-directional communication is sort of essential for any network app. Also all significant actions behind those HTTP button clicks are done on the server side to there is no effective difference. HTTP interfaces are very primative of course they are more efficient. Your point is invalid.
an ill wind that blows no good