I think it would be built from the ground up to be an application platform.
Oh dear no I hope not. One of the joys of the web is its transparency and discoverability. HTML is easy to write and read - and inspect on a website you're browsing. HTTP 1.1 is as well - you can easily learn how the web works by reading network requests.
The web as application platform, delivered as opaque blobs of WASM, is no longer the open web. If it had been written like that it would have failed.
In fact, it did fail. It was called Java applets and Flash.
Have you looked at any JavaScript application bundle? Everyone minifys, uglifys, and bundles for performance, and the result is unreadable. Without the source maps and dependency list, an inspection of modern JavaScript tells you nothing. Client heavy applications are some of the most popular web sites today, and some of the most used developer applications are Electron apps. You can argue that this is "Not The Right Way To Make Software" (tm), but the fact is the web as application platform has been very successful. So I stand by my original post. Knowing what the web becomes, I think it would be prudent to design it for efficiency as an application platform first, and a document sharing tool second.
Have you looked at any JavaScript application bundle? Everyone minifys, uglifys, and bundles for performance, and the result is unreadable. Without the source maps and dependency list, an inspection of modern JavaScript tells you nothing.
I feel you're making my argument for me here.
Client heavy applications are some of the most popular web sites today, and some of the most used developer applications are Electron apps.
How on earth is that an argument for the web to be a JavaScript application platform? An Electron app doesn't even need to be connected to the Internet, it doesn't need to be on the web at all. You could send me a copy on a ~floppy disk~ USB drive. If anything it's reinforced the idea that JavaScript 'web' apps have very little to do with the web at all.
You can argue that this is "Not The Right Way To Make Software" (tm)
I can and I do. But I haven't trademarked it. Yet.
but the fact is the web as application platform has been very successful.
The web has been very successful. The web as application platform has been very successful. JavaScript applications running in the browser, delivered over the web, with the web browser being used as a host-slash-interpreter-slash-GUI-library is... well, I'll just say it's ridiculous if you're just trying to make a recipe website, but pretty cool if you're building Google Docs.
Most people are not building Google Docs.
Knowing what the web becomes, I think it would be prudent to design it for efficiency as an application platform first, and a document sharing tool second.
The web is not just websites. It's a series of protocols, standards and conventions that have been used as an application platform for decades now. Not applications in the sense that you're using it - JavaScript in the browser - but distributed systems communicating over HTTP using principles such as REST. The reason the web has been successful is that it covers this use case as well as 'document sharing' (you make it sound like Dropbox).
As I've said in another comment above: the web is not just about the front end.
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.
Oh dear no I hope not. One of the joys of the web is its transparency and discoverability. HTML is easy to write and read - and inspect on a website you're browsing. HTTP 1.1 is as well - you can easily learn how the web works by reading network requests.
The web as application platform, delivered as opaque blobs of WASM, is no longer the open web. If it had been written like that it would have failed.
In fact, it did fail. It was called Java applets and Flash.
Have you looked at any JavaScript application bundle? Everyone minifys, uglifys, and bundles for performance, and the result is unreadable. Without the source maps and dependency list, an inspection of modern JavaScript tells you nothing. Client heavy applications are some of the most popular web sites today, and some of the most used developer applications are Electron apps. You can argue that this is "Not The Right Way To Make Software" (tm), but the fact is the web as application platform has been very successful. So I stand by my original post. Knowing what the web becomes, I think it would be prudent to design it for efficiency as an application platform first, and a document sharing tool second.
I feel you're making my argument for me here.
How on earth is that an argument for the web to be a JavaScript application platform? An Electron app doesn't even need to be connected to the Internet, it doesn't need to be on the web at all. You could send me a copy on a ~floppy disk~ USB drive. If anything it's reinforced the idea that JavaScript 'web' apps have very little to do with the web at all.
I can and I do. But I haven't trademarked it. Yet.
The web has been very successful. The web as application platform has been very successful. JavaScript applications running in the browser, delivered over the web, with the web browser being used as a host-slash-interpreter-slash-GUI-library is... well, I'll just say it's ridiculous if you're just trying to make a recipe website, but pretty cool if you're building Google Docs.
Most people are not building Google Docs.
The web is not just websites. It's a series of protocols, standards and conventions that have been used as an application platform for decades now. Not applications in the sense that you're using it - JavaScript in the browser - but distributed systems communicating over HTTP using principles such as REST. The reason the web has been successful is that it covers this use case as well as 'document sharing' (you make it sound like Dropbox).
As I've said in another comment above: the web is not just about the front end.