Everything web based
from bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works to programming@programming.dev on 14 Jul 18:57
https://sh.itjust.works/post/42152672
from bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works to programming@programming.dev on 14 Jul 18:57
https://sh.itjust.works/post/42152672
What’s your guys general thought on how everything is web based now? For me, I don’t really like it. I would just rather have an actual program that runs. But I am merely a user, not a programmer.
threaded - newest
For a lot of things I would rather have something web based than app based. I hate having to download some random app from some random company just to interact with something one time. Why do all restaurants, car parking places etc require apps rather than just having a simple site. Not everything should be native first IMO.
I should clarify i meant this more for computing rather than mobile. I do not like mobile half assed apps.
I agree that it can suck.
Many webapps are frustrating as all hell.
But I would rather one webapp with effort behind it than several shoddily implemented and pooroy maintained applications for various platforms.
Yeah there are pros and cons. Desktop apps are not sandboxed. Mobile apps are often missing features and are annoying to install. Websites often have poor performance or janky UX on mobile, and you need to be online, and you don’t have control of their availability.
I think the best option depends on what the thing is - ordering food from a random pub? Web site. Video editing? App.
As a dev: for all their flaws, web apps are easier to distribute, portable, and have a lot of support in frameworks. They also require little infrastructure in most cases.
As a user: web apps run without installing anything, are mostly portable between my browsers of choice, and run in a sandbox to protect my computer.
Probably 90% of my needs can be served by a web app if it is well designed. If I can’t have a web app, I will look for a flatpak version and failing that I will look for it in my distro.
+1
On a PC, I prefer having local tools; mainly open-source ones. They work without network connectivity, will continue to work in the future, store my data where I have control of it, and don’t generally don’t spy on me.
I think web apps might make more sense on mobile devices, because I mostly use them for communications and accessing online services, so network connectivity is usually a given. Web apps could also help mitigate the spyware problem brought by mainstream installed apps, because I could block third-party scripts if they were web apps. In practice, though? I de-googled my phone and use open-source apps exclusively, for the best of both worlds.
I agree with you. Better responsivity, better UI, better privacy, keep your data collected in one place which is your computer’s hard drive.
There are a couple of functions that web apps almost always have and that native apps tend to lack: (1) selecting and copying text from anywhere in the app to the clipboard; (2) bookmarking individual views within the app. Of course, natives apps in principle could be faster and use more of your hardware —in practice though, they tend to be horribly bloated electron crapps. 😅 So yeah, a decent native app can be better than a web app, but good luck finding one for your purpose.
This is an underappreciated benefit of the Web starting out as a bunch of documents, and then becoming an application platform. Even web apps are very text-first. Copy/past and crtl+F tend to work on most pages. And the fact that most views can be accessed via URL is handier than many people realize.
How could I forget to mention ctrl+f!
Electron “apps” are just glorified web pages anyhow. Native applications do offer superior performance as they are AOT compiled code. The ones that are written in rust, c, c++ etc, and if they are gui applications use frameworks like QT or GTK+. They are called native since they are compiled to machine code and are directly executable in the cpu without any kind of runtime like electron browser, java or python.
And even among runtime environments some are much better than others. I don’t really mind dotNet or the JVM that much, but Electron seems particularly wasteful. I don’t use a single Electron app.
It’s better than everything being exclusive to Windows, but I’d much rather everything just ran natively on Linux…
When possible, I prefer all of my tools to be in terminal. I’m not particularly interested in graphical user interfaces, or using my mouse at all. My only real exception is if I am doing digital art, but otherwise I look for either a terminal version of the app I’m looking for, a TUI, or I make a small terminal based app that utilizes the api of the service I am trying to access.
This.
It’s a choice.
I almost never use web apps; I do only when what I’m doing is fundamentally a web interaction: banking, for instance. Everything’s on their servers anyway.
For everything else, I (too) use shell applications. Even if I didn’t, there are tons of native GUI applications to choose from, and they are often far better experiences than SPAs or Electron apps: just look at the memory and CPU use, if you want a baseline metric.
Why do people do this? Because they fancy that they’re providing a good enough interface that works on every OS. Which is often not the case, and by the time you invest enough effort to get your SPA working well on every possible platform you could have written native apps that look and function better; and most organizations still throw in the towel and add a caveat “works best in X”, giving lie to the “web apps work everywhere.” So: laziness, or being cheap, and not really carrying about the user experience: those are the reasons people write web apps.
People don’t like downloading things unless they absolutely have to. It immediately puts a weight against anyone using what you’ve created. With web based, there’s nothing to download, and it works on any platform that can run a browser.
While at the same time, this is just a ‘perception’ thing.
The user is always downloading all the JS, just not really keeping it in a place they would look at and not having to click a “Download” button.
cheap interpretation. clearly the commenter meant download and install apps vs just visiting a website.
I like the attention to sandboxing/security that web apps are given, the ease of updating, and that the UI design is easier/more accessible (many more web devs than anything else) than traditional apps, but I still prefer the speed, size and light (memory) weight of native apps.
HTML/CSS/JS is just a possible frontend technology. It doesn’t really matter if your frontend is written in that or written in Qt or whatever. What matters in the end is that the developers are good ones. If the developers suck, the frontend will suck.
There aren’t many good developers.
If you can achieve the desired UX on web, I see few reasons to build a native app. But of course it can be hard to work with web technology sometimes; Javascript and WASM can’t do everything and they aren’t the best developer experience compared to more moderns languages.
Even for offline usage, there is increasing support for progressive web apps. For example, I don’t even need to be connected to the internet to use Exaclidraw after I’ve loaded the app once and installed it as a PWA.
Then there are times when you simply need access to native platform APIs. SQLite is a a very important technology that isn’t easily used from a web app. Most of the powerful APIs you get from an OS like the file system or graphics APIs are extremely watered down for the web.
disk access is missing in web apps. browsers have built in dbs available for devs to use
I generally prefer native local applications wherever possible, and for a long time I was against the movement to web based tools. That is until one thing changed. I moved to a different department at work. In this different department, I am issued with a Windows 11 laptop that is extremely locked down. It cannot run any executables aside from those whitelisted. I cannot run anything as administrator. If I need anything new whitelisted, I need to write a full page justification, get an endorsement from my manager, and then it can take over a year to get approved (but most likely will be immediately denied).
Obviously one thing it can run is MS Edge. All of the company tools and systems are webapps on the intranet, accessed via Edge. Now I’m grateful there are so many high quality browser based webapps around.
Progressive web apps are your friend. They can install through edge having their own icon and task bar button, but they are just the same web just in a special tab with the aforementioned behaviour.
Do you have any favourite PWAs you use for work or at home?
vger.app/posts/lemmy.world/home Voyager for Lemmy!
It’s cloud services, not things being web based. It’s capitalism hijacking technology and preventing you from owning anything. Figma runs in the browser and it’s a fantastic piece of software. But it’s also a cloud service that can be taken away from you at any point. But if you subtract the business model, the fact that you can run something like that in the browser is incredible. Web makes it so incredibly easy to distribute cross platform software. FOSS should embrace it and use it to build actually good software not all this SASS garbage.
Worse features with worse accessibility, reliability and horrible efficiency.
Surprise, a Document Object Model is not ideal for building User Interfaces.
I get all the advantages (portability and distribution mainly) but I also think we did the transition to web in the worst possible way. We basically took all the shitty solutions that were there 20 years ago and started improving them gradually at the same time as we moved everything to web. The result is that web apps are security and privacy nightmare.
What I think should have happened is that some standardized execution environment should have been defined that would use HTML/CSS for rendering but would also apply strict security. I would base it on web assembly, not javascript. You would be able to embedded this environment in a browser or install it at OS level. It would download an app package from a domain and by default only allow network communication with that domain. Everything else would have to be approved by the user. Basically something like web based android apps but stricter or Electron but lighter and distributed over the web. Instead of doing that we’ve spend 20 years perfecting lazy loading of JS scripts so that each website can have 400 trackers. And yes, I know we can do it now with Tauri but it’s not very common.
A bit too broad to give a specific answer from my side.
Overall, I prefer web based over apps, because I can CSS hack and if necessary JS hack them.
Web also means it doesn’t litter my PC or mobile phone or tablet. And that it can’t fetch more data than it needs or I want it to have access to.
Bad software is bad software, no matter if it’s installed or on the web.
Personally I really don’t like it too. But I just don’t care because:
It’s terribad, the only glimmer of hope is web assembly and the related apis, but ultimately it’s just adding another layer to the onion that will eventually have sensitive data and important interfaces to protect and require yet another layer on top.
Also it’s a sneaky way of exploiting foss without contributing back.
Am programmer. Hate it.
What “mere users” wanted used to be the prime directive for software development. Now it’s whatever scheme the marketing team comes up with.
I used to be like this too. I thought it would be too mainstream to have a website rather than a natively compiled application running on the computer…
And then my friend in high school started this thing on his laptop… a website… it was server side rendered… pretty satisfying… Then it took off…
I think the web can be nice with the right mix. I’m personally not too fan of these pages that are just white if you don’t turn on JavaScript. It’s just a feeling, nothing special. From a business perspective it makes sense, to throw all the rendering to the devices to save cost.