Why does web development make so little sense?
Author
Lately I've been working on a website and I find that almost nothing makes sense, it seems like the only language that is decent is javascript but even thats not perfect and you can't use it for everything.
The concept of a web browser seems so simple to me, simply pull the script from the URL using sockets and use a scripting API such as lua or python to interpret it and display visuals with OpenGL.
I mean it's 2009 we can do so much better, why are they still using such awful and limited scripting languages?
I can imagine cross-platform support and security are the two large obstacles.
I suggest you look into flash, silverlight, and java-applets.
I suggest you look into flash, silverlight, and java-applets.
The "web" is a hypertext medium. It was build to transfer textual information. Browsers were built to receive this text and do something meaningful with it (such as, display it with clickable hyperlinks, etc.).
Graphics are perhaps introduced for illustrations. javascript for UI enhancments.
Browsers are bound to support these technologies for a long time, and it makes no sense to abandon the fundamental hypertext medium, which is, text (and this medium can be read and written by visually impaired people, using assistive technology).
One could argue that browser vendors should extend the technology to other content types. But this would be too much work for the browser vendors. Or they would be the only one supporting their particular extensions (see ActiveX).
Fortunately we have browser plugins for other content types than text, such as Flash.
Graphics are perhaps introduced for illustrations. javascript for UI enhancments.
Browsers are bound to support these technologies for a long time, and it makes no sense to abandon the fundamental hypertext medium, which is, text (and this medium can be read and written by visually impaired people, using assistive technology).
One could argue that browser vendors should extend the technology to other content types. But this would be too much work for the browser vendors. Or they would be the only one supporting their particular extensions (see ActiveX).
Fortunately we have browser plugins for other content types than text, such as Flash.
Flex:
- Develop your client in AS3 which us like a more advanced version of JS, but has advanced 2D graphics and media streaming capabilities, as well as proper IDEs and debuggers.
- Pull the compiled Flash file from the server, and it can communicate with the web using sockets etc.
Similar story with Silverlight and others.
- Develop your client in AS3 which us like a more advanced version of JS, but has advanced 2D graphics and media streaming capabilities, as well as proper IDEs and debuggers.
- Pull the compiled Flash file from the server, and it can communicate with the web using sockets etc.
Similar story with Silverlight and others.
I find stuff like Flash, Silverlight, javascript etc. to work quite well and are actually very nice technologies often with wide ranging, relatively standardised support.
It's the damn standards compliance that kills me. Why do the W3C bother when no browser complies to the standards properly? Build one page, in Firefox it looks fine, bit dodgy in Chrome, slapped with fish in IE. Fix in IE, Firefox is fine and pretty much the same as before, now Chrome looks like Paris Hilton after 48 hours of non-stop partying. Then somebody fires up Konqueror and it barely loads.
It drives me something stir crazy and I often wonder if the 1998 massive image approach would be better. Also, next time I build a site I will ban IE6.
It's the damn standards compliance that kills me. Why do the W3C bother when no browser complies to the standards properly? Build one page, in Firefox it looks fine, bit dodgy in Chrome, slapped with fish in IE. Fix in IE, Firefox is fine and pretty much the same as before, now Chrome looks like Paris Hilton after 48 hours of non-stop partying. Then somebody fires up Konqueror and it barely loads.
It drives me something stir crazy and I often wonder if the 1998 massive image approach would be better. Also, next time I build a site I will ban IE6.
Quote:Lately I've been working on a website and I find that almost nothing makes sense, it seems like the only language that is decent is javascript but even thats not perfect and you can't use it for everything.
The concept of a web browser seems so simple to me, simply pull the script from the URL using sockets and use a scripting API such as lua or python to interpret it and display visuals with OpenGL.
I mean it's 2009 we can do so much better, why are they still using such awful and limited scripting languages?
...
That pretty much describes my initial response.
To elaborate. I've seen everything done on a web browser. E-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g. Complex data management, you got it: http://www.google.com.mt/. Office Suite?, you got it: http://docs.google.com/?pli=1#. 3D game? you got it: http://www.kongregate.com/games/mike_id/doom-1.
And those are just a few links I picked up at random. Really, these days you're only limited by your imagination. And since when have lua or python been "awful limited scripting languages"? I wouldn't even classify javascript as an awful and limited scripting language. I've seen people do things that can only be classified as "Wizardry" with javascript. Throw in a little ajax and you've got yourself a killer piece of information technology. Plug in a few SWFs, or hell, do the whole thing in flash, and you can do anything.<br><br>Seriously, what exactly are you trying to accomplish, that the dozens of mature, well tested tools available to you can't do? I'm curious.<br><br><!--QUOTE--><BLOCKQUOTE><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><table border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=0 width="95%"><tr><td class=quote><!--/QUOTE--><!--STARTQUOTE-->It's the damn standards compliance that kills me. <!--QUOTE--></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE><!--/QUOTE--><!--ENDQUOTE--><br><br>Amen.<br><br><!--EDIT--><span class=editedby><!--/EDIT-->[Edited by - WazzatMan on August 19, 2009 5:54:14 PM]<!--EDIT--></span><!--/EDIT-->
Quote:Why does web development make so little sense?Because it started as a framework for documents, then documents with styles, then documents with the ability to mimic applications, then applications inside documents, then applications with documents inside them, then applications with documents with browsers in applications ...
One of my major complaints with web development is that certain browsers won't accept the idea of using a website as a rich internet application and allow for it to be treated like one. Other than firefox and IE as far as I know you still can't have javascript prevent the default action of middle and right click with the support for both up and down events in javascript. (meaning you can't use middle or right click for better or for worse). I've noticed Opera has probably one of the worst attitudes toward this with their right click is for the browser mentality. (They're context menu takes over the right mouse button pretty much even when allowing javascript to detect the event).<br><br>There's a lot of things that need to be standardized and accepted.
You can do lots of things with javascript. It's possible to abstract away the browsers differences. You can even code a web application the way you would code a desktop one. Look at qooxdoo, for example.
Quote:Original post by CodaKiller
The concept of a web browser seems so simple to me, simply pull the script from the URL using sockets and use a scripting API such as lua or python to interpret it and display visuals with OpenGL.
I mean it's 2009 we can do so much better, why are they still using such awful and limited scripting languages?
Basically I thought the same thing, and actually made a web browser that did exactly that. I even posted about it on Gamedev. The scripting language was C# and the renderer used SlimDX, but same deal.
Like someone else mentioned here, I think the main issue with a system like this would be security, but as .Net languages are run in a virtual machine, the damage able to be done is fairly minimal, isn't it?
Also @Promit on your reply on the IOTD: I switched to SlimDX because XNA's content pipeline was giving me the shits, and I just plain liked SlimDX more. I guess thats kind of a free plug :P
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
