Hey there, I understand you have your own opinions on the subject matter and that's perfectly fine, I commend it, different opinions lead to even more learning and that's great! But I do feel the need to address your comment regardless
Mainly, I honestly think you're missing the point, the main point is the web is "evolving" and it's has changed and it's going to continue changing, whether or not you see web3 has a "blockchain propaganda" or not, people love the idea of a decentralized web and are willing to work to see it come to life.
For your statement on the static pages not existing, I can tell you for a fact that they did, I left a link to one in the article and if that isn't enough look up CERN's first website or even the first Amazon website, heck even Wikipedia (albeit being updated) can be used as an example for the static page explanation. You can read up on how ARPANET operated as well to help understand
And as for your statement on whether or not "web 2 or web 1" are lies, again I say you're missing the point, the web started from somewhere and continued to grow with each stage having it's own uniqueness and particular features, the categorization is just to help get the point across to people.
Look at it this way, cars initially started from somewhere yes? They started by working with 4 cycle combustion engines to using gasoline and now we have electric cars (although still being in limited supply and used but it is in existence), would you disregard the evolution of cars and their unique features? No, Would you assume electric cars are a marketing plot to fund dear old Elon? Well... that's up to you to decide, but like I initially said, your views and opinions are very much welcomed
Phewww! that was a lot, I really do hope this helped, bless :)
Yes, static pages existed, but so did non-static pages, ie the forums, chatrooms, and other sites I mentioned. Since non-static pages existed, that means the web wasn't "readonly".
And, no, I'm not missing the point, all those that repeat these same web3 talking points (and this site gets a couple of these articles every day) are missing the point. The only thing that changed about the web between the so-called web 1.0 and web 2.0 is that web devs started using AJAX to update individual parts of a page instead of updating the whole page. That's it. And that's not an opinion, that's a fact; I and many others where there at the time pointing out "web 2.0" as nothing more than a marketing term that misunderstood AJAX.
If the main point is that the web is evolving, then just say that. No need to make up eras of the web that didn't actual exist or bring back meaningless marketing terms that had thankfully died out. Spout web3 stuff all you want, but please stop spreading these lies about web history.
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.
Hey there, I understand you have your own opinions on the subject matter and that's perfectly fine, I commend it, different opinions lead to even more learning and that's great! But I do feel the need to address your comment regardless
Mainly, I honestly think you're missing the point, the main point is the web is "evolving" and it's has changed and it's going to continue changing, whether or not you see web3 has a "blockchain propaganda" or not, people love the idea of a decentralized web and are willing to work to see it come to life.
For your statement on the static pages not existing, I can tell you for a fact that they did, I left a link to one in the article and if that isn't enough look up CERN's first website or even the first Amazon website, heck even Wikipedia (albeit being updated) can be used as an example for the static page explanation. You can read up on how ARPANET operated as well to help understand
And as for your statement on whether or not "web 2 or web 1" are lies, again I say you're missing the point, the web started from somewhere and continued to grow with each stage having it's own uniqueness and particular features, the categorization is just to help get the point across to people.
Look at it this way, cars initially started from somewhere yes? They started by working with 4 cycle combustion engines to using gasoline and now we have electric cars (although still being in limited supply and used but it is in existence), would you disregard the evolution of cars and their unique features? No, Would you assume electric cars are a marketing plot to fund dear old Elon? Well... that's up to you to decide, but like I initially said, your views and opinions are very much welcomed
Phewww! that was a lot, I really do hope this helped, bless :)
Yes, static pages existed, but so did non-static pages, ie the forums, chatrooms, and other sites I mentioned. Since non-static pages existed, that means the web wasn't "readonly".
And, no, I'm not missing the point, all those that repeat these same web3 talking points (and this site gets a couple of these articles every day) are missing the point. The only thing that changed about the web between the so-called web 1.0 and web 2.0 is that web devs started using AJAX to update individual parts of a page instead of updating the whole page. That's it. And that's not an opinion, that's a fact; I and many others where there at the time pointing out "web 2.0" as nothing more than a marketing term that misunderstood AJAX.
If the main point is that the web is evolving, then just say that. No need to make up eras of the web that didn't actual exist or bring back meaningless marketing terms that had thankfully died out. Spout web3 stuff all you want, but please stop spreading these lies about web history.