But hey man, that's just like your opinion.
Programming is supposed to be about creating platforms for each other so we can continue solving higher (and higher) level problems. This web crap has us stuck fighting in the mud going nowhere.
https://www.commitstrip.com/en/2016/07/11/a-bad-workman-blam...
Jokes aside, the history of mathematics is a pretty worthwhile subject to study to truly appreciate the importance and implications of tools (or mathematical discoveries in this case). There's a reason why it took humans 2000 years after Euclid first wrote his 'Elements' to discover non-euclidean geometry...
HTML and CSS aren't as complex as those. Not even close
Flip side: You can distribute/deploy the host HTML application with reach that will be impossible achieve with a WIN32 or MFC application.
With canvas, every browser has hardware accelerated immediate mode rendering that could be used to create UI toolkits. Looking around the web, there are some attempts to make this happen, but none of them seem to be hugely popular.
Last time I looked into this (years ago), a big blocker was that nothing inside a canvas element is visible to accessibility APIs, so UI rendered in a canvas would be invisible to people using assistive technologies like screen readers.
I'd say building Win32 GUIs in C++ was easier than current Web stack.
Same with Java AWT and Swing libraries.
Objective C / Cocoa is more complex - never really managed to learn it beyond basic stuff, maybe with Swift it's easier.
Elm is close to those desktop GUI frameworks, but functional instead of OO.
But Tcl/Tk is the most easiest GUI toolkit ever, too bad the resulting UI does not look professional.
I will have to vehemently disagree. I have no experience with Win32 GUIs, but I still have nightmares about wrangling nested LayoutManagers: comparing that to the current state of the web (especially after Flexbox) is downright absurd.
I am very happy with: Typescript + (Sass|LESS) + framework (Angular|Bootstrap|ReactJS). I think the 'hardcore' devs who would rather avoid using abstractions (frameworks/JS transpilers) will have a torrid time with the front-end.
My two main issues with doing UIs on the web are:
- web stack is terribly unpredicatable; you're trying to force an inherently document-layout-oriented model into a free-form 2D canvas, which leads to layouts exploding whenever user switches browser/OS/device/timezone/whatever.
- the code makes no sense; no matter how crappy the Java APIs were (due to deficiencies of the language mostly), the code you wrote at least did what it said, because it expressed the UI concepts explicitly. HTML/CSS is a huge mess of insanity when it comes to doing UI work. I mean, in what reasonable world should the idea "center this" be expressed as "set the left and right margin to 'auto'"? CSS is full of stuff like that.
(And then there are some silly philosophies like "separation of form and content" which everyone touts, but rarely anyone actually follows; see e.g. grid layouts.)
Not ignoring Flexbox, this is the crux of my problem with web development. There are 8,476 different frameworks, transpilers, toolkits, and what have you that all kinda-sorta do the same things. When first approaching this world you get confronted with alphabet soups of packages all combined to "make front end development sane". Everybody seems to have their own soup, though, and many claim that theirs is the way to do development. The flexibility that so many Node-style devs love leads directly to this impenetrability and fragility.
If they do the same thing, pick one and dig in. I really don't get this argument - walking down the cereal aisle will not generate this amount of antipathy despite the amount of choice available; why on earth should development different?
The optimal taste, texture and crunchiness is different for everyone, you can even default to the traditional oats or corn flakes if the newfangled cereals are too brightly-colored or too confusing for you[1].
I love the JS ecosystem and its Cambrian explosion - lots of ideas (good and bad) being tried out by other people[2] and the good ideas tend to be adopted by the more mainstream projects.
1. This is obviously a thinly veiled allusion
2. This is important - don't be the guinea pig and don't jump onto the latest and greatest.
If I don't like the cereal I've wasted a couple of bucks. Picking the wrong framework can be much more costly in terms of time/money. And with the amount of framework churn you can't even make a good decision because in two years time everyone's moved on to the next big thing.
How to pick the right one: age ("old" but not too old) x community x documentation
For the simplest developments I used jQuery (which is a thin layer over pure JS). If you need more complexity you could go for a higher level framework (but there were not so great things like JavascriptMVC)
PHP gets a lot of bad rap but Fb is built on it
There is no perfect solution. When I see people "praising" Win32 I can just laugh (no, really, anything is better than this: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb384843.aspx) but I think the advantage of that is that there was only few alternatives so once the learning curve was gone that was it)
I know this was just a throwaway comment, but seriously, I love this site:
For the decades leading up to this stage cross system GUIs with a few simple library dependencies have been an unachieved "easy" task. Web remains as frustrating as ever because now we need it to work on all non portable browsers even on platforms that supports better ones. Then we want new features at an alarming pace that GTK could never normalize across *nixes.
Using the only non-browser that I think sort of got cross system portability working as an example.. I don't think things functioned reliably against the weird m$, Ibm and gcj Java implementations. But since they aren't really GUIs themselves with bookmarks, and familiar menus, no one gets upset when you tell them to replace an odd Java implementation before running a Java program.
1. Cross-platform across mac-win-linux-android-ios 2. Built for a compiled language such as pascal or C++ 3. Built to use native controls 4. Integrated to registered libraries through an interface like activex 5. Accompanied by a UI builder with design-time and runtime states and component builders. 6. Easily integrated to embedded and server-side SQL.
Sometimes we impose too many constraints on ourselves and never actually start anything. Fear of success?
- you could push one or the other
- you could try to support users on both side based on the editor variable
- you could go the new route where only users who care enough to invest do
- you could go the Jed simplicity route.
In the end, IDEs like jetbrains have the new route with plugins for the factions. Most lower investment cases do the Jed route which is more like web neutral. No one who pushed the unwanted editor on its opposing group seems to be still standing.
Applications with native UIs also tend to give a a better impression of responsiveness, and they reduce mental load for your users since they're don't have to relearn much (if anything). They can rest assured that every button and popup menu and text field (for example) functions identically to every other such control they've encountered on the system and in other native apps. This is worth way more than most people think.
One easy example of this is text fields in OS X. Native text fields there all have a form of emacs key bindings built into them to make powerful text navigation and manipulation a systemwide thing. Every application built with Cocoa gets this for free, but more often than not applications using non-native UIs don't implement this functionality at all. This is highly frustrating when you've worked said bindings into your workflow.
Not just an impression. They often are actually more responsive. Except when they hang, which does happen sometimes, but then so do web apps.
ttk does
However, displaying a modal window and handling messages in a local window-specific message loop is easy in Win32, and much more difficult in HTML/JS. In general, the browser makes it much more difficult to deal with synchronous operations like modal windows and server requests that require the application to wait on the response. This is how you end up with the overly-complicated mess that is callback-hell, which is then solved by another overly-complicated mess called promises.
So, presentation functionality = A+, foundational functionality for UIs = D.
The problem now is nobody can rationally understand the complexity. At least that was known before.
Perhaps the language may have been a barrier to some back in the day, but complexity vastly transcends that small issue.
The initial learning curve was higher, but once you had that knowledge it remained correct and relevant for years- sometimes decades.
And your application UX was faster and smoother. The minor lag between user interaction and UI action that we take as a given today in all but the most basic applications simply didn't exist if you wrote your UI to conform with the platform guidelines.
Even poor performing complex UIs typically did better than today's well written complex UIs - on hardware quite a bit less capable.
We've accepted he current hodgepodge because of portability, but if you've ever worked with the base platforms for any length of time , the difference is painfully clear.
This doesn't touch on how you could expect a consistent ui experience across all applications on an entire platform. It's hard to get that across even two web sites.
We are currently well into a full generation of developers and consumers who are unaware of what's being lost, because most of their interactions are with browser base applications and mobile phones. Waiting a few dozen to a few hundred extra ms for ui to respond is considered normal, if it's noticed at all.
I'll answer that: every single one. I haven't ever seen a GUI system more complicated than the HTML/CSS/JS mess. The problem with these is that at first glance they look easy. Doing 'hello world' in HTML is little more than actually typing 'Hello world'. They only become a mess if you try to do something reasonably complex. The end result of this is that there are many people who start out with HTML and stick with it. They simply never experienced anything different.
> Why then so many devs choose to use WebBrowser wrappers to render their desktop/mobile UIs because it's way faster and easier to develop with?
No, it's cheaper to develop with. There are many more 'web developers' out there than mobile developers and they are usually very cheap to hire. The goal of corporations is not to build the best UI or to use the best tools, it is to make the most profit. A web-UI is usually considered good-enough by the suits and web 'developers' are a dime a dozen.
If I had to write a Web application I would probably start by writing a UI toolkit from scratch based on HTML5 Canvas and just bypass the whole HTML/CSS nastiness. I've written UI toolkits from scratch before (all the way down to the text rendering engine) and even that was probably less work than trying to work around HTML's mess.
The answer to your second question is manyfold. First, it makes a false presupposition, web development is not faster and easier. Second, most devs probably chose the browser as a platform because Apple was so tremendously successful at creating artificial "application barriers" -- making it uneconomical, problematic or even impossible to create well-behaving cross-platform applications. Building application barriers used to be Microsoft's primary concern (they invented the term for internal correspondence), they fought hard against Sun's original vision of Java, but has become Apple's main trump card for while, after Apple decided to give up making great and innovative hardware. Third, mobile apps became sexy but the fragmentation is too high (even just Android is way too fragmented).
So many devs and companies bite the bullet and decided to make a web page for desktop and mobile phones/tablets as a least common denominator.
If you disagree, show me one non-trivial web application with the performance and a user interface that matches or outscores a corresponding native application, and we can discuss why it's better than the rest and an exception. So far, I haven't seen a single example but there should be one or two.
We old timers have native experience.
Many of those that use WebBrowser wrappers never used anything else other than web tools and aren't even aware of the RAD tooling we used like Delphi, for example.
There is the Unix Hater's Handbook (http://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf).
However, Unix doesn't suck half as bad as web development. Web development keeps a lot of problems alive that have been overcome in Unix development and everywhere else.
It's very difficult, as I get older, not to survey the computing landscape and be profoundly bitter about our absolute and utter refusal to use better tools in order to achieve greatness. It's like people choosing to eat McDonald's when they could have an affordable home-cooked meal prepared for them, for essentially the same cost.
Because these systems moved beyond what plain POSIX means.
Even on Apple and Google's OSes, their UNIX underpinnings are not that relevant, because most of the user space libraries and APIs don't have anything to do with UNIX.
All the mobile OS relevant APIs don't have anything to do with UNIX.
All the Objective-C, Swift, Java, JavaScript, C++ APIs available on those OSes don't depend on being implemented on top of an UNIX kernel.
Which ones do you mean? F#, ..., ???
>All the Objective-C, Swift, Java, JavaScript, C++ APIs available on those OSes don't depend on being implemented on top of an UNIX kernel.
Interesting point.
Also I didn't mention just C#.
Even the big companies can't do pretty basic things on the web, like justify text beautifully. It's not hard to imagine another world with much better typography on the internet. Ditto for better languages and a better layout system.
Most importantly, just because something has broad support and took a lot of effort does not put it beyond sharp criticism. That's no way to make progress and a perfect way to make entrenched worse-is-better technologies that managed to get popular even more entrenched.
And they throw huge amounts of resources at the web stack to do it. It might work for them, but I'm not sure that makes it powerful, performant, and manageable for those of us who aren't huge companies.
To me js and css are kind of manageable, a bit the same way as python: use strongly enforced linters forbidding anything ambiguous, do not jump every other day in a new sexy bandwagon, and do not let one line of code commited in without an automated test running it on a ci machine.
What I found harder to manage is the young FE devs themselves: for them it seems every new project, or every new view in the same project, is the opportunity to use a completely different, new toolset. Oh, and some new syntaxic sugar candies supposed to "save" a couple of keystrokes (which is the worst reason you can find to use a new syntax requiring its own tools). I find this very dangerous, especially when the github repos holding these tools are 3 months old.
Have you looked at the microservices craze lately? You need a new one of these each time you scratch your head.
This is because employers are demanding that candidates know the latest and greatest technologies (eg. looking for 5 years of experience in 1 year old technology). I'm an FE dev, and during my last round of interviewing 3-4 months ago I was asked about my thoughts on Redux, CSS Modules, Radium, Docker, GraphQL/Relay, ClojureScript/Om, etc.
If I need to be experienced with this stuff to stay employable because just doing my job isn't enough, then I'm going to learn it.
I disagree. Compared with other languages and technologies used for similar purposes, none of JS, CSS or HTML is particularly powerful or efficient, nor do any of them provide particularly good tools for helping new developers get up to speed or co-ordinating large teams working on the same project. I initially wrote a huge set of specific examples to support these claims, but on reflection I'm not sure criticising JS/CSS/HTML in excruciating detail would really advance the discussion here. Suffice it to say that best-in-class programming languages, document preparation software like TeX or high-end DTP applications, and representations like PostScript and PDF, have all been doing everything JS/CSS/HTML can do and much more for a long time.
Facebook, Google and Microsoft all use the web stack to run huge companies.
That's not the whole story, though, is it? For example, both Facebook and Google became successful primarily for the hard problems they've solved on the back end, particularly in terms of scalability. Facebook's main web site is nothing special in general UI terms, and their web-based tools for advertisers are awful. The search engine that took Google into the big leagues was famously extremely simple on the front-end, and while today they also have applications like Google Mail and Docs/Apps/whatever it is called this week in their portfolio, again the front-ends for those are still relatively simple in general UI terms and would probably be unremarkable in any other context.
To broadly paint this web stack that so many people poured countless hours into making, as 'impossible' to use is doing it a great disservice.
I don't see anyone saying it's impossible to use. However, it's probably fair to say that the state of the art in front-end web development is between one and two decades behind the general programming community, and that many relatively inexperienced people working in the web field are slowly but surely learning the same lessons (and repeating the same mistakes, and repeating them again) as the rest of the programming world did before. One of the biggest problems, IMHO, is that quite a few of those people now work for influential businesses like Google and Facebook, which means quite a few even less experienced developers assume they know what they're doing. And that's how you get framework fatigue, left-pad, "living standards", sites and apps written more than a year or two ago no longer working in modern browsers, and other such madness.
The corollary to that is that the system uses components that target the lowest common denominator. I'm not sure "anyone can contribute" is a good foundation for any complex technical endeavour - if we are speaking specifically of implementation.
It's Java. Last time I checked, still a painfully verbose language and build environment, with the wizardry of JVM tuning on top.
Perhaps, some day, this will turn into something more pleasant: https://sites.google.com/site/gowebuitoolkit/
It does require huge companies like these to work with the web stack painlessly and they're behind initiatives to make it even more cumbersome. You could say that they have an incentive to hamper competition by screwing up the web and they're doing it well.
Often a developer is thrown into a stack that was built crooked and gets discouraged. Instead, its your job to get in there and clean it up. It may take months but you'll you yourself and your team a big service!