Slashdot Mirror


People Don't Hate to Make Desktop Apps, Do They?

Annie Peterson writes "Paul Graham has been making the argument that desktop development is dead — That's his premise for declaring Microsoft dead as well, and he claims that no one out there likes to develop for the desktop anymore. But that's not true, or is it? Desktop development is easier, faster, more productive, and infinitely more enjoyable — right? The question is, since web apps were originally built on desktop applications themselves, have the tables flipped? Or is it just wishful thinking?"

6 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. the problem with google apps by TinBromide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Web apps are fun and all... Until my comcast tech decides to flip my interweb switch to OFF for 5 hours.

    Then i'm glad i don't rely on ajax apps or anything to get work done. While corporate customers enjoy a level of reliability that the average home user doesn't even dream of, being chained to the internet, yes, being chained to hotspots or cell towers for mobile internet is a drawback that the average user can't consider.

    While php and perl are great, people like to think they're somewhat self reliant, and relying on outside sources is good every so often, you don't hire consultants to do payroll for you.

    The web apps are like consultants, you bring them in for activities that is too expensive to implement and are only needed for on demand, but you don't have them do mundane activities that you could hire someone full time and not lose money on.

    --
    Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
  2. Desktop app development by 280Z28 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I prefer desktop development. Web development gets frustrating with its nooks and crannies of brokenness. If standardized Javascript and CSS were as ubiquitous as C/C++/[anything else desktop], that might someday change... but probably not.

    --
    Turning coffee into code.
  3. I don't see desktop apps ever going away entirely. by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're never going to get the performance on the web (for most things) that you can running locally. Equally, while tools and frameworks for faking it have gotten a lot better, maintaining state is a pain in the ass on the web and generally is not on the desktop.

    It's like when Java came out and some people said we'd never write C again. There are things Java is good for and has taken over, just as there are things web apps are good for and has taken over, but there is still a place for desktop apps just as there is still a place for C.

    The kind of bold, sweeping statements made by this article aren't much more than flamebait in a pretty dress.

  4. Give Me The Desktop by MBCook · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I develop two things for a living. I work on a server back-end, and on the web front-end. The back end is easy. It's all Java, it's fun to develop for (there is challenge in some things, for example).

    Then there are tons of front-end things I do. I hate them. It's developing the same code OVER and OVER (since we basically make copies of some parts to be used numerous times) and the glue code always has to go in there and is a pain. Then there is the scripting. Besides making things display right (which is a pain across numerous browsers), there is the functionality. "We want a select all checkbox." "When you update this date, it should update that date, unless this date is before than date except when...". Javascript is HIDEOUS. Can we just replace it with Python or Java even PHP?

    Our problems are all user based. The users want it to work like a desktop application, but want it to be web based. It should respond fast and do all this checking and such, but it can't be a real application. You should be able to move forward and backwards without things going weird (can be tough to do in the stateless-ness of the web) but it can't be a real application.

    We want an application, but we want it to be web based. We want it fast, but it must be made in HTML and Javascript. Blah blah blah.

    I would LOVE to do more desktop applications. I wish I could.

    I wish users would get over this stupid "lets put everything on the web" stuff. There is a fair amount of what we do that I can see being web based (like most of the reporting type stuff external users use). But all the management stuff we use in house would be a much better fit to a real application than the web applications we are using now.

    Please, PLEASE.... bring desktop applications into vogue. Java allows right-once-run-anywhere to just as high a degree as HTML/JavaScrpit, if not more. Takes less bandwidth. Can run much faster. Can do client side stuff easier.

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  5. Re:Firefox 3.0 by tambo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Wait for Firefox 3.0 [readwriteweb.com]. Soon you'll be able to use your web apps, even if you're connected at 0 Mbps.

    I'll believe it when I see it.

    Sorry, I just can't be optimistic about this. You shouldn't be, either.

    Look - today's web browsers can't even really get offline web page caching right. We're about a decade into the WWW revolution, yet browsers still can't passively save all of our web accesses and show 'em to us again when we're offline. I'd love to have my browser cache all of Slashdot's articles, and BoingBoing's, and Fark's links, for later offline browsing... yet it can't do that. The best we can get is RSS, which, frankly, is crap... it's like Gopher in HTML.

    If browsers can't tackle the very simple task of caching routine HTML for offline access... what gives you confidence that it will cache complex AJAX applets with even minimal usability?

    - David Stein

    --
    Computer over. Virus = very yes.
  6. Re:Firefox 3.0 by dk.r*nger · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'll believe it when I see it.
    Sorry, I just can't be optimistic about this. You shouldn't be, either.
    Look - today's web browsers can't even really get offline web page caching right.


    I'm not sure why I should adjust my expectations to technology according to your misuse of technology.

    Todays browsers don't get offline caching of Slashdot right, because Slashdot is an online application, and says so:

    HTTP/1.1 200 OK
    Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:48:30 GMT
    Server: Apache/1.3.37 (Unix) mod_perl/1.29
    SLASH_LOG_DATA: 07/04/10/011220
    X-Powered-By: Slash 2.005000152
    X-Fry: I don't regret this, but I both rue and lament it.
    Cache-Control: no-cache
    Pragma: no-cache

    Vary: User-Agent,Accept-Encoding
    Connection: close
    Transfer-Encoding: chunked
    Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1


    In order to read Slashdot offline "right", you need to break HTTP. And we all know what happens to naughty boys who breaks standards.

    Offline webapplications will work offline because they will be designed to work offline. They will get safe caching of resources and a stateful browser-DOM-object to save data to. It's not exactly rocketscience.