>> Quoting myself (for the third or fourth time now): "The Ajax answer is to keep all of the lobotomized
>> bits and build increasingly Byzantine layers on top of the existing mess in order to re-introduce the
>> capabilities that were hacked off in the first place.
> Um, state is kept in sessions through the use of cookies. It has nothing to do with AJAX. Cookies are not
> perfect (they may be turned off), but they are a far cry from Byzantine.
I'm sorry, I don't see anything about "state" in here, and I don't see where I said that cookies are Byzantine.
> So what you're trying to say is that server-based applications are garbage? That's not a foregone
> conclusion. If you need a smart client code a smart client, that doesn't mean there aren't benefits to
> doing things the other way.
Of course I'm not saying that server applications are garbage. I'm saying that application programmers should have choice.
> I can't point out anywhere where you say how web applications are procedural, I was just trying to guess
> at your meaning. You just say "dumb xml data structures get passed to "stateless" objects (in other
> words, procedures)". Only where are the stateless objects? The backend code is all object-oriented and
> stateful, and the JavaScript code has the current view as its state. Where's the procedural code?
There is no context between the client and server, unless (as you point out) it's stored in cookies and session objects. We have therefore sacrificed the inherent statefulness of the underlying technologies (TCP and OO programming) and created additional mechanisms to make up for the loss.
>> So you're saying that if all of us clever technology types put our heads together, no one will be able to
>> devise a content scheme that has more capability than HTML while remaining compatible with HTTP?
>> Web applications are about the most expensive development effort the world has ever seen. So my
>> answer, with respect to any reasonable alternative, is, "less than the cost of a Web application."
> Of course someone can come up with a better idea. But that's 1% of the problem. Then you have to
> implement it on every platform and have it shipping with every computer.
I never said (or implied) anything about any of this.
> Also where do you get the idea that web applications are so expensive? This is just your impression.
No, it's a fact. And it's very easy to see why: standards that are implemented differently in every browser and back-end, lack of interoperability (for example, take an arbitrary company X and try to plug its SOAP client into company Y's server), and absurd proliferation of technologies for achieving even simple tasks.
> The web's limitations may be its downfall when it comes to rich interfaces, but it's a strength when it
> comes to speedy development and deployment of simple apps.
This, again, was not my point, but I'm in partial agreement with what you say. Web applications are easy if they're *very* simple.
>> On the other hand, I would like you to explain how asserting that something is badly designed
>> constitutes pretention.
> No your disdain due to an assertion that I'm following a herd is pretentious.
It might have been if I'd said it. Saying that I'm bothered by herd behaviour is not the same as saying that you are following a herd.
>> I also never said that Web applications are "a poor copy of traditional client applications.
> Are you for real? Or am I just not allowed to summarize? The whole gist of your arguments was that web
> applications are a 'lobotimization' of older technologies. I just assumed client applications, but maybe
> you were referring to something else. Either way, your arguments by themselves are not cohesive, I have
> to extrapolate somewhat to argue at all.
You don't have to extrapolate anything. My point - my *only* point - was stated stated quite explicitly, and I've re-quoted it several times: "The Ajax answer is to keep all of the lobotomized bits and build increasingly Byzantine layers on top of the existing mess in order to re-introduce the capabilities that were hacked off in the first place." It's pretty clear that this approach entails some serious limitations, so you may infer that if you like. "Poor copy" (as you put it) is a value judgment that I never made.
>> And in the midst of your pragmatism, how hard do you work to blind yourself to the debilitating
>> design flaws inherent in the technology that supplies you with a living?
> There's no need to blind myself to any flaws. That those flaws are debihilitating is simply your
> unsubstantiated opinion.
Not at all. The fact that people want more functional networked applications is not a matter of opinion. Nor is the fact that Ajax is poorly designed to meet the need. Were it an appropriate tool, for example, Google's attempt to produce an online office suite would not have failed.
> The web grew up organically and so things like AJAX are clearly not ideal, but on the other hand they
> get the job done.
They get *certain* jobs done at a very high price.
> The fact is that most things people want to do on computers do on the Internet do not require complex
> interfaces.
Yes they do. For example, how many people want to be up at 3:00 a.m. in order to place a bid on an eBay auction (since, as we all know, bidding at the last second is the best strategy)? How many people want to have to keep hitting "refresh" in order to know the current price of the stock they're tracking? How many people have hit the "back" button and seen their filled-out Web form lose all of its data? How many people have accidentally placed multiple orders for the same item because it wasn't clear if their order had been accepted? How many people have had trouble continuing their shopping because they can't get back to their context after adding something to a shopping cart? How many people have had a credit card number stolen because Web applications cannot encrypt through to a receiving bank? How many people have gone to PayPal in order pay for something, then found themselves unable to get back to where they were? How many people use downloaded i.m. clients because i.m. doesn't work well on the Web? How many people use peer-to-peer clients? How many people would like to be able to drag objects from one Web application to another? How many Web applications have been broken by someone in the marketing department changing a link? How many Javascript applications have had trouble with the "back" button? Even this Slashdot interface sucks (no offense to the maintainers). There's no easy way for me to see all of the relevant postings at once so that I can respond to the correct chain of events.
> You can point out a million ways web applications could be better, but ultimately they work pretty well
> and they're pretty easy to develop.
See above.
> You've pointed out several flaws, but you haven't made a case for why they are so debihilitating. Either
> you are not comfortable with the web app paradigm and the associated tools, or you are only interested
> in things that the web isn't good at.
See above.
> My point is not that the web is good at everything, but rather its very good at a large number of things
> that a large number of people are interested in using.
This is true. But the implicit claim of Ajax is that you can make the Web do things that it will never do well.
> You came out firing about what garbage web apps were because they were lobotomized versions of
> pre-existing technology.
No, this is not what I said. I won't quote my point again, because I'm sure you know it by now.
> The web is designed as lightweight infrastructure on purpose, not as some 'lobotomized' form of
> something else.
Quite correct. This is again not my point, but I will state the matter explicitly: the Web originally came into existence as a mostly rational embodiment of a rational set of objectives. This has nothing to do with what's being made of it now.
> Do you really expect people to take your arguments seriously when you throw out blanket statements
> about what crap web tech is?
Every one of my statements was justified, and it seems a number of people have taken them seriously, including you.
> Then you act innocent when I address your various supporting clauses saying they have nothing to do
> with your point?
My supporting clauses obviously relate to my point. It's just that you've made many inferrences about them that I never implied. In particular, here is a partial list of things that I am *not* saying:
1) any particular Web application (Ajax or otherwise) is crap;
2) Web developers are herd animals or bad engineers. In fact, I'll go a step further. Non-trivial Web applications are so difficult to develop that most Web programmers are probably above-average engineers;
3) people shouldn't develop Web applications;
4) the Web is not the only available vehicle for deploying certain applications.
5) the Web does not provide any benefits.
