Coffeehouse Thread

55 posts

Is it me or does HTML5, CSS 3 and Javascript seem like a big step backwards?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    SuperSpit

     

    Yes i love Wpf and Silverlight and i understand there’s going to be many platforms but why HTML and JavaScript? surely MS and Google and Mozilla etc could of come up with something from this century?

    Why is it lowest common denominator wins?

     

  • User profile image
    Richard.Hein

    @SuperSpit:  With regards to Javascript specificially, I think Anders some good points about Javascript.  Paraphrasing:  "Good enough" beats "perfect" due to reach and the ability to tie heterogenous systems together through multiple paradigms supported by the language.  40:15 Charles -> What do you think about JavaScript, from a language designer's perspective? 

  • User profile image
    fanbaby

    First and foremost HTML/CSS/JS are open, vendor neutral, patent free standards. mainly VENDOR NEUTRAL Wink

    I understand you trust Microsoft, and I respect you for that. But i would guess many users/developers don't. Not that it matters, but I don't. For example I think that if Silverlight was a success, The Mac port would slowly wither (it may have happened). Also, Microsoft's suit against Barns and Nobel, regarding trivial patents (please look it up), is just shameful and makes it hard to trust Microsoft.

    If you feel you cannot live without dotnet, petition Microsoft to release it completely! Then there might be a chance. Otherwise the current state where it's mainly ignored on the web (as RIA), and ignored by many/most web startups will continue. These are new times and it seems to me that Microsoft and its developers are having hard times adjusting.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    , SuperSpit wrote

     

    Yes i love Wpf and Silverlight and i understand there’s going to be many platforms but why HTML and JavaScript? surely MS and Google and Mozilla etc could of come up with something from this century?

    Why is it lowest common denominator wins?

     

    Because it has to be made simple enough for FOSS developers to understand, too.

  • User profile image
    fanbaby

    , ScanIAm wrote

    *snip*

    Because it has to be made simple enough for FOSS developers to understand, too.

    1. Ooch, [BTW, it's vice versa Wink]

    2. You missed the OP's point. He means SL/WPF are easier to develop with.

  • User profile image
    spivonious

    , fanbaby wrote

    If you feel you cannot live without dotnet, petition Microsoft to release it completely! Then there might be a chance. Otherwise the current state where it's mainly ignored on the web (as RIA), and ignored by many/most web startups will continue. These are new times and it seems to me that Microsoft and its developers are having hard times adjusting.

    Mainly ignored? Pretty much every site I see these days ends in ".aspx".

  • User profile image
    fanbaby

    spivonious, I wrote ignored as RIA. I also wrote ignored by most web startups. I stand by these.

    Also, .aspx is the last proprietary server-side technology. Name one other that's widely used.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    , fanbaby wrote

    spivonious, I wrote ignored as RIA. I also wrote ignored by most web startups. I stand by these.

    Also, .aspx is the last proprietary server-side technology. Name one other that's widely used.

    Name one that's profitable.

  • User profile image
    wkempf

    @fanbaby: Release it completely? .NET is already a ECMA/ISO standard, but that's not good enough for the FOSS folks, which is crazy. I can understand wanting to avoid the frameworks that aren't standardized (which means WPF and SL among many others), but the FOSS folks go way beyond that, attacking Mono and Miguel on a daily basis. You're trolling here.

    I'm not stuck with any tech, perfectly willing to use what's most appropriate. Sometimes that even includes JS/HTML/CSS (though I think the movement towards "web apps" run in the browser is really stupid). However, there is a valid point here. Developing using JS/HTML/CSS is far more difficult and restrictive than it should be.

  • User profile image
    ryanb

    @fanbaby:  This question doesn't have anything to do with .NET or any other MS technology or why the standard needs to be open.  The question is why the open standard has to suck so badly.  HTML/CSS/JS is all one massive kludge of hacks and patches trying to get around the fundamental limitations of the underlying platform.  (HTML is the most short-sighted technology in the history of computing -- thinking that it would ever work for content-creators to NOT be able to control the appearance of their pages.  Everything since then has been about trying to undo the problems built into the original platform.)  The HTML monster is too big to kill (or switch away from) at this point, but it's still a mess and makes everything much more difficult that it should be.

     

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    , ryanb wrote

    @fanbaby:  This question doesn't have anything to do with .NET or any other MS technology or why the standard needs to be open.  The question is why the open standard has to suck so badly.  HTML/CSS/JS is all one massive kludge of hacks and patches trying to get around the fundamental limitations of the underlying platform.  (HTML is the most short-sighted technology in the history of computing -- thinking that it would ever work for content-creators to NOT be able to control the appearance of their pages.  Everything since then has been about trying to undo the problems built into the original platform.)  The HTML monster is too big to kill (or switch away from) at this point, but it's still a mess and makes everything much more difficult that it should be.

    What "fundamental limitations"? How is HTML/CSS/JS a "kludge of hacks and patches"? If they were then we would be far beyond the current 5th revision of HTML. HTML4 only received one update in its 14 year life.

    The design of the web platform makes perfect sense from my perspective: HTML defines a document's content, CSS describes how that content is laid out and any appearance preferences, and the scripts define interactivity. It's the perfect separation of concerns that you don't see with other platforms like WPF (where content and appearance is the same document).

    What do you mean by "it would ever work for content-creators to NOT be able to control the appearance of their pages"? I haven't had any problems with controlling the appearance of my pages, even before use of CSS was mainstream.

    It's a good thing that the system prescribes a general way of doing things and ensuring that the end result is accessible and portable across different implementations and rendering paradigms (such as TTS, mobile devices, printers) thanks to the graceful degradation inherent in the specification. WPF, Flash, et al. can't do this because, to me, they're just glorified multimedia platforms.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    , wkempf wrote

    I'm not stuck with any tech, perfectly willing to use what's most appropriate. Sometimes that even includes JS/HTML/CSS (though I think the movement towards "web apps" run in the browser is really stupid). However, there is a valid point here. Developing using JS/HTML/CSS is far more difficult and restrictive than it should be.

    It depends on what the application is. For LoB 'form filling' applications with a healthy dose of boring data and record fetching them web applications make perfect sense.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    HTML+CSS+JS should be killed with fire.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    , cbae wrote

    HTML+CSS+JS should be killed with fire.

    Why?

  • User profile image
    wkempf

    , W3bbo wrote

    It's the perfect separation of concerns that you don't see with other platforms like WPF (where content and appearance is the same document).

    I won't disagree with most of your points, but the above statement isn't technically accurate. In WPF there is a seperation of content and appearance, and while it's fairly typical for the two to be in the same document there's no reason this has to be the case, and in fact it's often not the case. There's things I prefer about the design of CSS/HTML (though not the implementation), but seperation of concerns isn't one of them. Making this statement indicates you have a deficiency in your knowledge of WPF.

  • User profile image
    wkempf

    @W3bbo:

    , W3bbo wrote

    *snip*

    It depends on what the application is. For LoB 'form filling' applications with a healthy dose of boring data and record fetching them web applications make perfect sense.

    In theory, I don't disagree with you. There is a (small) subset of applications that are well suited to the web. In practice, though, I can count the number of web applications I've encountered and like on the fingers on one hand, and even among these there are flaws caused by constraints placed on the application running inside of the browser. Give me a choice between a web application and a "native" application and I'll choose the latter almost every time.

    A "click once" web deployment better suits me.

  • User profile image
    vesuvius

    @wkempf: Therein lies the issue at hand. It is hard communicate the beauty of WPF to one that is already nonchalent or even dismissive about the technology.

    I have worked on Several WPF applications and there is no way I would ever return to winforms. We are six months into a project now, and the app not only looks great, but it is fast. Having smart developers which I am lucky to have helps.

    Recently we have implemented a feature in WPF in a couple of weeks that took over 6 months in the winforms version (which we have a legacy version of)

  • User profile image
    Charles

    Good point, Richard. Reach wins every time. That's really all it comes down to; it's the essence of it.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.