Slashdot Mirror
Can Web Standards Make Mobile Apps Obsolete? (arstechnica.com)
nerdyalien writes: There's a litany of problems with apps. There is the platform lock-in and the space the apps take up on the device. Updating apps is a pain that users often ignore, leaving broken or vulnerable versions in use long after they've been allegedly patched. Apps are also a lot of work for developers—it's not easy to write native apps to run on both Android and iOS, never mind considering Windows Phone and BlackBerry. What's the alternative? Well, perhaps the best answer is to go back to the future and do what we do on desktop computers: use the Web and the Web browser.
no
Next question.
How many times is this going to be rehashed? Wasn't Java going to accomplish this 15 years ago? The web browser has turned into a VM - a very convoluted, inconsistent, difficult to develop for, hodgepodge mess of a VM. We've got WebGL and Web Audio API and all the HTML5 stuff (local storage, canvas rendering, etc, etc), and still it's a pathetic step-child of a "platform" to develop for compared to pretty much any proper platform. If "write once, run everywhere" is what you want, then sure, go for the lowest common denominator (HTML5 "apps") and you will end up with the end result of the lowest common denominator of performance and platform integration.
Better known as 318230.
no, that's not what FFOS is. FFOS takes web sites and packages them up as apps that are delivered through a store and they run locally on the device, something like Cordova apps. The story (and I ought to know because I wrote it) discusses actual mobile web sites, e.g.. m.slashdot.org as opposed to a Slashdot app. It's not hard to give the app experience by putting an icon on the screen and running the browser full-screen
"perhaps the best answer is to go back to the future"
Oh you mean going back to thick clients on the desktop like we used to? Yeah I'm for that. Going to the web for everything? That was Jobs first idea for the iPhone and quickly saw the draw backs.
Besides email and, well, browsing, there's nothing I do on a web browser. I like having local applications.
Steve Jobs, 2007: You can build amazing Javascript Web 2.0 apps for the iPhone! We didn't make a SDK because you don't need one.
Steve Jobs, 2008: Okay here's your SDK
Its not hard to give the app experience for something like Slashdot. But for something complex - yeah it is and it will still suck compared to the native app version.
I should know I wrote a highly complex iOS app (nearly single handed) that took a team of web developers to try to match functionality and it still sucks by comparison.
Sorry but this article reads very naive
"but in the long term the company may move back to a more portable model. (We also asked Facebook for comment on this story and got no reply.)"
Yeah Facebook might decide to takeover the moon to - but they haven't made any moves in that direction either. What they have done is began to build a suite of native libraries.
I hate upgrading my apps. I'm entirely willing to suffer security vulnerabilities and lack of new features in order to keep the user interface I'm used to and that works for me. In the case of Google Maps and Chat and almost everything else Google for example, new versions offer totally different functionality that often doesn't work for my use case anymore. I strongly suspect that there's a LOT of users like me...yeah, security vulns suck, but the time investment to keep everything up to date and relearn infrequently used applications is massive. I'd never get anything done.
No language choices, no reliable offline support (which should include installing app from an sd card if needed), no ability to downgrade the app or delay updates until problems are fixed. Plus massive performance, memory and functionality hit due to inflexibility and targeting lowest common denominator.
I only use apps that will work offline as well as online. If your app is online only then stuff it. I'll just use the mobile web page using jquery instead of buying your lame $1.99 browser wrapper.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The article doesn't actually take into consideration what users want. Most users don't want Web crApps It's just another whine fest about lazy developers.
And frankly your article is poorly written. Things like:
From the user's standpoint, it would be far better to have access to all those apps through a browser. Most of the reasons are the same as for the developers—nothing to install and automatic updates.
are silly. Installing an app from Google Play or Apple's app store is trivial and automatic updates have been part of iOS and Android for years now. I've known plenty of people who have never used iOS and only ever dumb phones that have been perfectly capable of installing apps from the App Store and having them be auto-updated.
Sorry but apps through browsers totally suck for usability in comparison to local apps.
Apart from anything else there's the whole complete dependency on being connected thing, then there's all the massive extra lag because every interaction and UI update are now doing GETS/POSTS to a remote backend, Then there's all the unnecessary extra data usage and extra battery usage as a consequence which are both very real factors for mobiles.
Browser apps are even a bad idea on desktops. We just "upgraded" to Office365 at work. What a complete fucking laggy mess and giant step backwards in productivity and usability that is, mostly because its obviously implemented as some sort of browser-based app now. I'd bet it just because some clueless moron like you at Microsoft thinks "moar web=== kool"
The benefit that native apps give is consistency. Unless your app goes out of its way to do something weird (and these definitely do exist), it gets consistency for free! The user learns how to use their environment, and this consistency gives them an anchor point for using your app efficiently.
Web apps are the wild west with every site behaving differently in all but the basics, and then sometimes even the basics don't quite work. Even those who try to mimic a native app's look and feel never seem to get it right, leading to frustration as you then expect things to work in a specific way.
Until this can be solved, I don't think web apps are the solution. Even then, web apps tend to use significantly more RAM and CPU, so it's still not going to work where responsiveness has value.
I don't know about everyone else, but IMHO the web browser is THE WORST platform to code for in existence. It amazes and depresses me how little has changed about client side web programming since IE4. Instead we have created these huge frameworks to try to hide the suck under an enormous pile of middleware. But still we are doing this fundamentally broken thing of shoehorning a language intended to describe formatted text documents (HTML) to instead describe a GUI for an application. This reminds me of IE4 and its web page dialogs.
If we truly are serious about having the web be an application platform then a new markup intended to describe cross platform application GUIs and a standard bytecode for the web is needed. Asm.js and enscripten or PNaCl both could be our new standard bytecode, both have pros and cons that I won't rehash. Honestly I'm not a huge fan of either one. But no one is trying to address the fact that HTML's layout system is designed for documents... Not for GUIs. We really need something like XUL or XAML made in to a web standard. I don't care about the politics of what language/tool we choose as long as its a good one thats open for all. I'm sick of the holy wars over tools and languages. That said JavaScript is garbage just like HTML and CSS for actual development and needs to be replaced with a sane language.
>> Updating apps is a pain that users often ignore,
Dude enough with the unrealistic strawman.
On Android, OSX, Windows and Linux at least, you can set updates to happen completely automatically, or at worst you just have to hit OK to authorize the available update its notifying you about. How is that really a pain?
Wrong.
I'm tired of downloading app after app when nearly all would work just fine in my web browser, especially when most of are random sites I've visited for the first time and they are pushing their app on me? No way Jose.
Apple tried it and failed.
Firefox tried and LOL failed.
Google tried it and is failing (how many chromebook users do you know?)
Nope, no one wants HTML, CSS and Javascript shitapps.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
No
And yet I've never heard the average person ever talk about wanting web apps. 99.9% of the time it's from developers or tech bloggers.
Sonny, when netscape navigator was the bomb, and java and javascript were plugins, every one said the same thing then too. This will replace the file system and the applications. Java promised to run on all architectures. But it actually became write once, crash everywhere.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
it's not easy to write native apps to run on both Android and iOS, never mind considering Windows Phone and BlackBerry
apparently you haven't heard of Qt because it supports all of those platforms.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
in mobile battery life matters. That not only means efficient code, it also means code that plays nice with the OS to properly minimize mobile resources including memory and keeping apps in main memory. The reason apple iphones get away with smaller batteries and smaller memory sizes is that code bloat of java (dalvek).
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
actually that is how iphone was before user generated apps. then they saw what was happening in android land and decided that it made more sense
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
But similarly, you haven't heard the average person talking about wanting native apps either.
Developers and tech bloggers haven't realised that they need to balance conflicting desires (universal availability and version uniformity vs offline access and access to local hardware/services/data) which would induce preferences either way. What you are seeing is the tech community noticing the features they are missing, building them, and throwing away the features they already have in the process, then repeating again in the other direction.
The average person has no idea about any of this, and doesn't care as long as they can still send selfies and cat emojis to their friends. If a native app allows them to do it, they will use that; if a web app does, then that's where they will go. As long as they can click an icon and send the picture, it's good enough for them.
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
The slashdot mobile web site sucks in comparison to apps like simply slashdot in terms of performance and NOT COVERING BUTTONS WITH CRAP! Plus, the slashdot mobile web site doesn't use the phone's back button correctly, because it IS just a dumb web app. Post a comment, then hit the back button after your comment is displayed, and look - you're back at the post comment screen. Bad functionality. But that's the way web browsers work (unlike real apps).
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Have you even tried the mobile site on a smartphone?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The idea is not very good for a desktop with a reliable internet connection, but it becomes ridiculous if you look at it in terms of mobile systems. An internet connection is not guaranteed. If I am out of signal range with no WiFi the last thing I want is to have a device that can't run my applications. That goes double if I'm lost in the woods and need a compass app or I'm looking to tune my guitar, for example.
Fundamentally,you can achieve the same advantages by just setting the OS such that new updates get automatically pushed to your device.
It is 2016 on Friday. If you are running out of space on your phone you're doing it wrong. Get a friggin device with decent storage and add a large uSD Card. Problem solved.
What a ridiculous thing to say. Desktops don't rely on a web browser for all their apps, or even a significant portion thereof. Do you know how many "apps" (i.e. programs) are on a Linux system, or even a Windows one for that matter. For Linux the count is literally in the thousands. Even if you are using 100 Web Based programs (and who is doing that), you are still looking at an order of magnitude more local applications.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
It also ignores that fact that you have to download all the code and ui resources every time you "load" a web app. Moronic article.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
So does dragging the URL onto the phone's home screen.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
That's sort of impossible since the iPhone SDK predates the first commercially-released Android phone, the HTC Dream, by 8 months.
App stores are popular because iOS and Android mobile browsers suck and a typical rich web app/site (like your average bank or Google Docs / Microsoft Office) won't run correctly. Maybe phones with 3GB+ RAM will change this.
You can drag one atop the other and they will appear like they were in a folder when you touch the icon.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Believe it or not, cellular service isn't as ubiquitous as people think it is. There are still significant areas of the country without adequate cellular coverage. Are you willing to have your "apps" not work because your browser can't connect to the intertubes?
WebOS is missing from your list..... http://www.openwebosproject.or...
and their HTML5 framework: http://enyojs.com/
But no one is trying to address the fact that HTML's layout system is designed for documents... Not for GUIs. We really need something like XUL or XAML made in to a web standard.
I have daydreamed a bit about using Qt's QML as a way of transferring GUI information/design for websites, rather than HTML documents. If you're not familiar, QML is a Javascript-syntax (superset?) markup for declarative programming of GUIs, and Qt5 and KDE's Plasma 5 use it extensively. It's Javascript origins mean most people are already familiar with it, and could potentially repurpose/extend existing javascript engines for it rather than throwing it all out. I haven't done major projects with it, but I am a fan of KDE so I'm pretty convinced its powerful enough for general purpose web apps.
That being said...
That said JavaScript is garbage just like HTML and CSS for actual development and needs to be replaced with a sane language.
Javascript is not a great language so there's slight concern of any language based on javascript. But, maybe part of why javascript sucks so much is that HTML and CSS are not really designed to work together with it. A new language/engine designed to work with it, like Qt QML is, might be fine.
https://xkcd.com/1174/
A lot of "native" apps are already just wrappers for Web content. It really is a pain for developers.
OK, so let's talk about security. If done right, a Web browser could implement the same security scheme (or better) that is now enforced for apps. Desktop browsers have started to do this somewhat, asking you if you want to provide location info, for example. A more comprehensive permissions system could directly port native permissions to Web content.
Everybody wants you to install their app, for no good reason. If you want to stream your local TV station, they want you to install their app, one for each station. An app for CBS, one for NBC, and so on. Every store wants you to install their app so you can see their hours of operation or apply for a job. LinkedIn, which works perfectly well in a browser, wants you to install an app. Same for Facebook. Next, Slashdot will want you to install an app to read their stories on mobile, and you KNOW they will force you to see their ads.
And that leads to probably the biggest advantage of browser-based content: you can use an ad-blocker.
You don't know and understand browser caching or do you have a good understanding of the reasons it would not work effectively ?
Ok so now, before I want to use the app in offline mode, I have to go to the webpage first and do something to make sure that it downloads and caches all the code and data that the app will need to run offline which will need some special functionality on the website to do reliably so better hope they support it. Then I need to somehow make sure that the browser keeps this information cached and does not delete it from the cache when I download a different page. Finally I'll then need a special URL which goes to the cache without having the browser wait for an internet timeout.
Exactly how is this better than an app I just download once and click on when I need it? Especially if I have one which exercises the CPU since implementing it s a webpage will kill the performance.
Speaking of badly-implemented... Guys, if you can't maintain a user session across subdomains, maybe you should skip the subdomains and just let your users stay logged in...? Nobody actually looks at URLs anymore in any event, right?
ö_Ö
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Then I have a bunch of shit in a folder on my home screen. (I'm looking at you, MS *and* Google.) I don't want that there, either.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Sigh, this gets trotted out every year, usually by a fvcking web developer who couldn't be bothered to learn anything else.
The reason there are still apps is because they fill a very needed niche. Try write a web app that you can use out in the middle of nowhere without internet access, or worse intermittant or VERY SLOW internet access. Ontop of that the web app has every framework and kludge thrown in to make it look like an app and what you get is a very very frustrated user, who will drop your web offering and go with someone who bothered to write an app.
There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
I bet the mainstream app user is a mindless consumer of bandwagon apps. They install too blindly and, likely, without a true need. I am not in the add-on App camp for the most part. Android gets Firefox. For work, it also gets a vendor's ticket management app. For my, CM Nook, it got Firefox, Pandora, and the Nook Reader. My iPhone 5S has no add-on apps.
.
Landfill Mining Co.
Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
They failed too and are already forgotten.
I call it the first law of IT: Toys win.
When the PC came out it was a toy. Litterally.
3 decades later its the only computer architecture worth talking about.
Why? Its open and there is no single entity controlling it.
Linux was a toy back then. Now it owns everything in computing that isn't controlled by marketing.
And it secretly owns those rebranded platforms like android, which is Linux in disguise.
LAMP is a toy. A toy everyone can use. Now it runs 70% of the web.
WordPress is a toy. A toy everyone can use and tinker with. It runs 25% of the web.
Technolog wise the web stack is a silly joke. But it just killed a technology dead that was something like 15-20 years ahead and orders of magnitude less shittier: Flash. Why? Proprietary and controlled by Adobe, a company interested in profit, not technology. If Adobe would've FOSSed Flash at the beginning of the touch revolution, it would've stood a chance. Now it's dead.
What's remaining of the web is technology that was hip 20 years ago - you know, that time when XML was better than anything else, because at least it was a standard. ... Until HTML came along that is.
The Web is a toy. But it runs everywhere and my grandma can learn to write for it in 10 minutes. Its a slow-as-hell buggy meta-plattform - but its the only one we've got in a time where fragmentation - especially in the mobile space - is rampant.
My Website from 15 years ago will still render on todays browsers, even on mobile. On screens and platforms we didn't even dream of back then. Try that with a windows or mac app.
The Web is a toy that is laughed out of the room, especially here on slashdot. It's laughed out of the room like the PC was in the early 80ies.But
, as a toy, it's open and everyone can tinker with it. That's why it will win.
So yes, native mobile apps will most probably become a specialty and web-tech-based apps the norm.
Toys win.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Ooooh boy. We got ourselves a genuine Internet Badass here!
And we all know there are no badly-implemented websites. No, they are all well-architected and coded to perfection. *rolls eyes*
So what you're saying is "you could do all the things you do today, if you bought massively more powerful hardware, because I'm too lazy to write code that runs efficiency"
The fact is that native code, with manual (or compiler inserted) memory management will always be significantly more efficient than crappy web apps and their interpreted (even JITed), garbage collected mess.
You shouldn't be saying "Maybe phones with 3GB+ RAM will change this" but instead "Hey, why does my code require 3GB of RAM to run even half reasonably, when that other guy's code runs natively on a device with 1GB of RAM"
Now, like Rip Van Winkle, going to sleep for 25 years, let me know how it worked-out when I wake up!
Most mobile apps... Actually most apps, are a basic CRUD based system (Create Read Update Delete). Apps are really only really needed for the following.
1. Interface Performance Matters: This includes games, graphics edits, sound editing, CAD. This is where the UI will be doing a lot of work to provide a rich experience... Most Apps give you data and sit there awaiting input. Web Standards may be implemented well, however sometimes you just need the low level.
2. Additional User Input/Output. Needing that new device camera, motion detector, special screen that takes different input Or outputting to a specialized device. Web Standards cannot be adapted to handle new technologies.
3. Non-Default security. Sometimes those security warnings will get in the way and those apps can bypass them.
However that is only a small portion of the apps.
Most mobile apps are just a wrapper to a web site, or send XML, JSON to a server and work just like a browser. So with proper web standards implemented and optimized for the devices they are installed on most of your apps can be useless.
Web Standards is the reason why we can function very well with Linux, Macs, iOS, Android... Comparing say 20 years ago (1996) where most applications were Installed on the PC, and these apps were for trivial things, that have been moved to web sites. So we can function rather well in 2016 with just an web browser as the only application.
We would only need applications for high end work.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Right, just like adblock. Only a real nerd would care about something like adblock right?
Geeks tend to obsess about problems early, the mugs always try to pretend it doesn't matter until they get fucked over by them.
Well, that's about it for me today, but before I run off I'd just like to say how absolutely hilarious it's been chatting about the virtues of the web platform using a web site that's hideously broken. It keeps logging me out, and then when I log back it throws away my context and makes me manually search for where I was again... then I start moving faster to try to post a reply before I get logged out again and I start getting the "Slow Down, Cowboy" message (a blast from the Beebop 90s, that is...).
The usual X-Windows versus Client-Server architecture we've been debating for years. How smart and how local do you want your UI to be?
The 100% Internet availability requirement makes it a tough sell to many end-users. The PITA of developing on the platform makes it a tough sell to developers but most especially their management. Lack of reasonable access/support to client local assets removes it from consideration for a variety of purposes unless you're willing to sacrifice a clean implementation.
HTML5 can be reasonably leveraged for some--generally simple--purposes. However, even if it's possible to satisfy the technical requirements for a project with HTML5 kit it's not always the most appropriate choice. Said another way, yes, it is technically possible for master craftsmen using simple hand tools to precisely and accurately work with wood, metal, stone, etc. to produce refined, sophisticated works. Why however would anyone sign up to such a plan when a far more abundant labor pool, with significantly less training can hit a few buttons on a CNC machine to produce equivalent or better works, more consistently and in a fraction of the time? There's a reason for multiple tools in the toolbox, not everything is a nail nor should it be treated as such.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Ooooh boy. We got ourselves a genuine Internet Badass here!
Yep! Life here is pretty good as a genuine Internet bad ass! The hands of people worldwide click and tap uncontrollably just from the fear that I will might engage them! I was an Internet bad ass long before all those mindless bandwagon hoppers started installing apps for everything under the sun on their mobile devices.
.
Landfill Mining Co.
Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
Sure sounds a lot like an app drawer to me.
Sure sounds like Windows 3.1 Presentation Manager to me.There seems to be not much new under the sun nowadays.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I DON'T HAVE to download a new version of the app - I can keep the old one just fine. With the web app, every time they change it, you are forced to download new crap, and you run the risk of losing functionality that worked in the previous version because someone had a brain fart or needed to make changes to justify their salary.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You're right- my mistake :-)
I remember when I saw Windows 95 at one of the previews, and I turned to the guy next to me and said "Didn't they just rip off OS/2 2.1?" Looked pretty much the same to me - and him. Some of my co-workers took the free Win95 and Microsoft Office cds - I didn't because who wants to waste their time on a product that, at the time, wasn't really ready for prime time? Should have taken them and given them to one of my sisters. My mistake.
And no, haven't seen predestination, though I'm sure it's good. Maybe one day ... and everyone who's logged in knows what way it applies to me - I'm not shy about the whole sex change thing, but thanks for the thought :-) TTYL
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
First, I haven't had mod points in years - not since I took a break because I could no longer see well enough to read or do a lot of other things.
Second, transsexuality is no longer recognized as a disorder. What IS recognized is the problems caused by society's non-acceptance that lead people to, for example, kill themselves. But that's okay - by your posting, all you're doing is showing that you are out of tune with current thinking, both of the medical community and the larger population. And of course, I wouldn't dream of not allowing you to say it, even if it is wrong.
Third, you keep referring to May of 2010 (if people follow the links enough) for the whole "posting anonymously" bit. Why is it okay for you to do it and not others? Unlike you, I haven't posted anonymously except for one time, on my phone, when I accidentally did so.
Fourth, PTSD and the ensuing major depression disorder are nothing to be ashamed of. I admitted to it because I didn't like the way that commenters were piling on attacking the person in an article about their mental problems.
Obviously, when people like you feel that attacking others based on things they have no control over, there's more need to talk about it. Nobody asks to be a transsexual, nobody asks to have PTSD, nobody asks to have Major Depressive Disorder, just like nobody asked to choose what colour, ethnic group, or parents they could have.
So consider this post a Public Service Announcement, because there are others out there struggling with the same or similar problems, and all you're doing is making it worse for them, not me. BTW - 4% of the population is diagnosed with a mental illness (temporary or permanent) every year. 25% of the population has at one point or another been mentally ill. Many people don't get treatment because of attitudes like yours - but times are changing. We don't stigmatize people who have juvenile diabetes, a physical illness that nobody asks for, we don't stigmatize rape victims any more, and we shouldn't stigmatize people for mental illnesses either. :-)
As for hosts, I really don't care any more, and I made my reasons clear why years ago. Jangle bait in front of me all you want, I won't take the hook. It's really a non-issue in 2015.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Slashdot is definitely moderated. Not just by users, but by real actual moderators. Lets take a great example: apk. He has a copy-paste "host engine" spambrick that he poops out sometimes dozens of times per thread. But is this promotion really spam? It's topical (he won't post it unless someone is talking about ad blocking or security), it's not commercial (he wants to spread awareness, not sell you something), and he'll absolutely throw down with anyone who wants to debate.
Yet, his posts are DELETED by the moderators. I don't see anyone too upset about this- he obviously shits on forum etiquette by posting the same general promotion/debate brick of text. But is that really free speech? It's some kind of border. He's not selling penis pills, he's trying to help for real. But if you look up the threads where he debates people now, you'll see most or all of his posts deleted- that means someone had to make the call.
The poster claimed that your posts are being deleted. I pointed out that they are not (at least i my experience). I am NOT the one who brought you up as an example or dragged you into this argument. So why are you attacking me instead of the original poster? Maybe you're too quick to take offense where obviously none was intended.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Hey, you were doing it to me, but when I told people to do the same to you .... whah whah whah??? Everyone knows you post pretending to be other ACs. You're still doing it even today. And I only got involved recently in ONE reply that someone had already mentioned your posting habits in.
So really, how is saying this ...
And I've been known to change my views or admit I was wrong on-line. It's no big deal - it's just the internet. As an example, we're no longer fighting because there's more to life, he's an okay guy on other topics, and what the heck, if you don't like it, just don't browse at -1 :-)
.... any sort of insult?
I did not "drag you into this" or "stab you in the back." I've already said I'm sorry if you took it that way, but I don't see how saying you're an okay guy on other topics is an attack on you.
Why don't you link to the original post, where I told people to do to you the same thing you were doing to others?
You claim that I'm damaging your reputation, but if you want to find the real source, you might want to look in the mirror instead of attacking someone who defended you by saying you were an ok guy in other respects, and that if someone doesn't like what you post, they should stop browsing at -1.
Keep on fighting - all you're doing is proving I was wrong about you being an ok guy in other respects. I still don't get why you're attacking me instead of the post I was replying to.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Prove it? I can't even prove that it's you who's posting the above. And neither can you. That's the problem with ACs, so please don't be disingenuous.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Can you prove you made any of the posts you made, including the one I'm replying to? See the problem? :-)
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
This article starts off with false statements such as:
"There's a litany of problems with apps."
Is there really? Let's look at the problems this author has mentioned:
1. There is the platform lock-in
This doesn't have to be the case anymore. With Xamarin and other tools, there isn't a platform lock-in. You can code once and deploy to iOS, Android, and Windows Phone, OS X, and Windows Desktop.
2. The space the apps take up on the device.
This is a short term problem that will be resolved by enhanced hardware. In two or four years, we will likely have phones with close to 1TB.
3. Updating apps is a pain that users often ignore, leaving broken or vulnerable versions in use long after they've been allegedly patched.
Really? All my apps auto-update. I get prompted to update ones that require manual updates to re-approve because they are using a new feature. Seems pretty simple to me.
4. Apps are also a lot of work for developers—it's not easy to write native apps to run on both Android and iOS, never mind considering Windows Phone and BlackBerry.
Again, not true. Check out Xamarin and similar tools. If you think html5/CSS/JavaScript is easy in comparison to compiled code, you probably don't have enough experience with the many problems due to different browsers and different devices. Even with standards, the way the standards are implemented are often different.
Actually, I my brother attends a school where ChromeBooks are mandatory.