Slashdot Mirror
HTML5: It's Already Everywhere, Even In Mobile
electronic convict writes: Tom Dale has never been shy, and in a Q&A with Matt Asay on ReadWrite, the EmberJS co-founder and JavaScript evangelist makes the outspoken claim that open Web technologies are already everywhere, even in native mobile apps, and that it's only a matter of time before they catch up to "all the capabilities of a native, proprietary platform." Take that, Web-is-dead doomsayers.
Dale has plenty more to say, calling Google an "adolescent behemoth" that's belatedly embracing open-Web technologies in mobile, lauding Apple's Nitro JS engine and belittling the idea that Web apps have to look and feel the same as native apps for the open Web to triumph. His bottom line: "[I]t's not hard to see that the future of the Web on mobile is a happy one."
Dale has plenty more to say, calling Google an "adolescent behemoth" that's belatedly embracing open-Web technologies in mobile, lauding Apple's Nitro JS engine and belittling the idea that Web apps have to look and feel the same as native apps for the open Web to triumph. His bottom line: "[I]t's not hard to see that the future of the Web on mobile is a happy one."
but the platform was intentionally designed to make it impossible for security reasons.
Perhaps thats true for some technologies, but as user agents didn't add those features to the web, all of those shiny features landed in flash or silverlight and ended up being less secure and more broken than before. Soon every website told you to install flash because it was so new and so cool.
So browser vendors had the choice: either add the features to the browsers themselfes, or rely on one company (Adobe, silverlight came later) and their "Browser inside a Browser".
Of course HTML5 is less secure, and especially WebGL allows the web (traditionally a very dangerous place) to access the graphics card without a dense safety net. But otherwise you would have unity web player or other technologies, which are basically punching holes exactly there where you build your safety net.
HTML5 isn't less secure because people wanted it to be less secure. They wanted to obsolete plugins, but still meet the Web's users demands. Do you have flash installed?
While I somewhat agree with your statement let me just add the fact that "The Enterprise" is a joke. The word "Enterprise" in the software world automatically means "expensive and poorly built, unmaintanable garbage with vendor lockin". Maybe "Java" too but the "enterprise" tag already stinks like shit so adding more shit to it doesn't make it any shittier really.
For example, the article on readwriteweb does nothing if Javashit is disabled, yet it's just a static piece of text with some images and could have been just as effectively rendered in HTML 3.0 like any other motherfuckingwebsite.com.
Sad thing is, HTML 3.0 is more responsive than most of the shit I see today. HTML 3.0 used to just wrap words at the end of the screen or the window, no matter what the "designer" wanted. Now, when the "designer" wants a 6-inch minimum width, the text is unreadable on mobile unless you're willing to scroll back and forth for EVERY FUCKING LINE OF TEXT. And when the "designer" wants a 500-pixel maximum width,
the website
looks like this
on the
desktop.
Fuck web design. Fuck web designers. And increasingly, fuck the web.
UI-aside, C is a lot more portable than HTML5 is.
Sure if you're writing embedded applications, backend server programs or scientific computing applications HTML5 is probably not the best choice but if you're talking end-user facing programs then it's going to be portable across all the major (and most of the minor) platforms.
The real problem is that people *want* to see creative, aesthetically pleasing and different designs when browsing the web.
You're right though, It's those fucking web designers. It's a conspiracy. They should all just stick to black-on-white 12pt Times New Roman instead.
No that's basically it.
Long story short, HTML5 came about around the same time as the rise of hipsters, the type of people who produce crappy little "artsy" indie games that we're supposed to give a toss about but don't because they're crap, you know the type of person I'm talking about, people like Phil Fish.
So all these people that really don't have much of a clue about technology but can now "create" think it's a magical new thing, something incredible and amazing.
But in reality anyone with any degree of technical competence recognises HTML5 for what it is- it's one step forward, and two steps back, parts of the spec are just outright broken, the semantic tags being a prime example. The set of semantic tags is so small and already outdated and the description so ambiguous and explanations from the spec writers so contradictory amongst even themselves that people use them in different ways meaning it's anyone's guess what their semantics actually are in practice- you can ascertain no more information about the content contained within than you could when everything was a div with a genuinely descriptive id or class.
You've now basically got all the crap you had with Flash as standard but without being able to disable the plugin to kill it and with even worse performance and less accessibility.
So yes the HTML5 fanboys who are mostly non-technical hipsters may call it the second coming of C, but if you instead view it as the second coming of the AOL homepage it makes far more sense.
The only way COBOL might die a natural death is if the biggest companies in the world all fold, without any of their IT assets being sold at liquidation.
Given that the value of those assets is easily in the hundreds of millions of dollars for large companies, it's a bit unlikely.
COBOL will out live anybody reading (or writing) this comment.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
You must be new to the world of programming -- old technology never dies! MWA HA HA HA!!!