>With my own computer, there are things I can do to prevent that. With webapps I'm 100% reliant on someone else: there isn't a damn thing I can do.
But what about your group-think lemming mother? On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a...@a.a> wrote: > "Michael Stover" <michael.r.sto...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:mailman.1037.1292442333.21107.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 2:26 PM, retard <r...@tard.com.invalid> wrote: > > > >> Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:40:50 -0600, Andrew Wiley wrote: > >> > >> > The point was that while Javascript is slow, it's getting fast enough > >> > to be useful. Yes, it's not C. It will never be. But the fact that any > >> > sort of realtime calculations are possible in it is a breakthrough > that > >> > will be reflected in actual application code. Javascript was not > >> > designed to be fast, and honestly, it doesn't need to be fast to fill > >> > it's niche. > >> > >> I'm not getting this. WHY we should use Javascript/HTML5 applications > >> instead. I'm perfectly happy with my existing tools. They work nicely. > It > >> takes years to develop these applications on top of HTML5. I simply have > >> no motivation to use web applications. They have several downsides: > >> > >> - you "rent" the app, you don't "own" it anymore > >> > > > > Many would find that a benefit, as updates are automatic, never need to > > install new versions. > > > > It's not uncommon for newer versions to be worse. Look at Acrobat Reader, > iTunes, and Nero. A lot of people don't want to be forced into updates that > make things worse. My Mom uses Hotmail and has a fit every time they decide > to change everything around (which seems to be quite a lot). She'd be far > happier with something that didn't work that way, but she sticks with it > because she's every bit as much of a group-think lemming as everyone else. > > > > > >> => which leads to: advertisements, monthly fees > >> > > > > Again, benefits galore for some folks. Should I pay $80 to buy the > > software > > and find out if I like it, and another $40 two years later to upgrade, or > > pay $4/month and quit whenever I'm done with it? > > > > Or get freeware/FLOSS and pay nothing and have no ads. And there's > ad-supported desktop software too, so with desktop software you can go > either way. Web apps can't go either way, because there's always the > possibility the owner will pull the plug, and even if they don't, the > ownser > will still have server expenses which will have to get paid somehow. > > >> > >> - worse privacy (do I want some Mark SuckerBerg to spy on my personal > >> life for personal gain) > >> > > > > Same issues with applications you install on your computer. Perhaps they > > are worse in that case, since so many people have so many problems with > > malware, spyware, worms and viruses. > > > > With my own computer, there are things I can do to prevent that. With > webapps I'm 100% reliant on someone else: there isn't a damn thing I can > do. > > >> > >> - worse security (a networkless local box IS quite safe, if CIA is > >> raiding your house every week, you're probably doing something wrong, > >> otherwise, buy better locks) > >> > > > > Javascript+browser can be a purely client-machine application too just > > like > > D or Java or C > > > > Yes, but what would be the point? It would be all downsides and no upsides. > If you're going to have a local app it may as well be > D/Java/C/Python/whatever. > > >> > >> - worse performance (at least now and in the next few years) > >> > > > > Yes. But if you take frame rates in games, which is a terrible example > > for > > javascript, the more general truth is that beyond a certain point, > > performance differences are undetectable to the human eye. > > Which the vast majority of JS web apps are nowhere remotely near. > > > At which point, > > the only thing driving your technology choice is developer productivity. > > Which once again is a big vote *against* web-browser-as-a-platform. > > >> > >> - worse usability > >> > > > > Completely disagree. Desktop apps right now have an enormous advantage > in > > how much development-hours have gone into them over web app counterparts. > > This will change, quickly. > > > > I've been hearing that for a long time. Still waiting. In the meantime, the > only changes I've seen have been for the worse. > > >> > >> I know the good sides. No need to mention them. In my opinion the > >> downsides are still more important when making the decision. > >> > > > > Honestly, where do think things will stand 5-10 years from now? > > > > I shudder to even think...Nowhere good considering the directions things > are > moving. > > > >