Tom is a must-read as ever: twitter.com/tmcw/status/12… Much to agree with, but I can't get on board with the idea that there's a strict dichotomy between docs and apps. (Case in point: my day job is building apps that sit inside news articles.) 1/3
15:10 PM - 24 Aug 2020
Tom MacWright
@tmcw
okay, here's my pitch: let's redo the web https://t.co/x1shlb43LC
So when it comes to web-based solutions there are a whole range of approaches between "document" and "application" - and in many circumstances a full-on application is simply overkill, especially considering the trade-offs.
Is Gmail a website or a web app?
Gmail has a standard (more app-like) view and a basic HTML (document-like) view.
What about github?
Based on their Tech Stack they are grounded in the document web (it's a file repository after all) but heavily augment that to be more app-like (sometimes with mixed results).
what about figma
From what I know it's pretty close to the "application web" extreme. But that comes at a cost.
Understanding the Web with Jeremy Keith:
"But you’re missing on the very reason why you’d want to put something on the web as opposed to just making it for one platform. It’s to get that reach. If you’re not planning for that reach, I wonder why do it on the web?"
Apps like figma require:
A device of a certain level of computational power to run it on (and battery/power to support it)
A connection with a certain level of connection quality and bandwidth
Failure to meet any one of the minimum requirements reduces the reach of the app from the potential reach of the (global) web. Of course this is a non-issue for internal apps where the clients and connections are under full control of the organization.
At one point in time Google was working on V8-lite for low-memory mobile devices - and these days Chrome Lite mode is a thing. So "lean browsing" and apps may not mix.
The days where web developers were "looked down on" by the developer community is long gone.
From what I remember the quotes were something like "we're not developing a brochure site, we're building an app". So it's entirely possible that sentiments like that helped to fuel the rush to "web apps" simply to feel more relevant.
… the point being there's more to the web (and browsers) than just web apps.
You can perform pretty much 99% of your tasks right on your browser.
As long as "ideal circumstances" prevail - yes. But it is surprising how easily circumstances can be less than ideal.
With each passing day we get closer to the "web winning", in the "virtual war" between web and native.
The web will never "out-native" native - native has direct access to the actual OS without the overhead of a browser and app bloat isn't nearly as heavily penalized as it is on the web.
Some have argued that "web emulating native" is in fact the losing move that wasted time that could have been spent exploring alternate modes of interaction where the web can improve upon native.
The web will never "out-native" native - native has direct access to the actual OS without the overhead of a browser and app bloat isn't nearly as heavily penalized as it is on the web.
This is actually an interesting take. Simple yet I do not know why it did not occur to me.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Not exactly.
As a blog post discussed there are two extremes:
So when it comes to web-based solutions there are a whole range of approaches between "document" and "application" - and in many circumstances a full-on application is simply overkill, especially considering the trade-offs.
Gmail has a standard (more app-like) view and a basic HTML (document-like) view.
Based on their Tech Stack they are grounded in the document web (it's a file repository after all) but heavily augment that to be more app-like (sometimes with mixed results).
From what I know it's pretty close to the "application web" extreme. But that comes at a cost.
Understanding the Web with Jeremy Keith:
"But you’re missing on the very reason why you’d want to put something on the web as opposed to just making it for one platform. It’s to get that reach. If you’re not planning for that reach, I wonder why do it on the web?"
Apps like figma require:
The Fallacies of Distributed Computing (Applied to Front-End Performance)
Failure to meet any one of the minimum requirements reduces the reach of the app from the potential reach of the (global) web. Of course this is a non-issue for internal apps where the clients and connections are under full control of the organization.
At one point in time Google was working on V8-lite for low-memory mobile devices - and these days Chrome Lite mode is a thing. So "lean browsing" and apps may not mix.
From what I remember the quotes were something like "we're not developing a brochure site, we're building an app". So it's entirely possible that sentiments like that helped to fuel the rush to "web apps" simply to feel more relevant.
More recently Transitional Apps have become a talking point.
Understanding Transitional JavaScript Apps
Ryan Carniato for This is Learning ・ Nov 12 '21 ・ 6 min read
… the point being there's more to the web (and browsers) than just web apps.
As long as "ideal circumstances" prevail - yes. But it is surprising how easily circumstances can be less than ideal.
The web will never "out-native" native - native has direct access to the actual OS without the overhead of a browser and app bloat isn't nearly as heavily penalized as it is on the web.
Some have argued that "web emulating native" is in fact the losing move that wasted time that could have been spent exploring alternate modes of interaction where the web can improve upon native.
This is actually an interesting take. Simple yet I do not know why it did not occur to me.