Comments on: Web applications suck and they’re not worth creating

By: Eduardo León

Eduardo León — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 23:37:54 +0000

Couldn’t agree more. There’s way too much hype around the Web. What’s so great about it? Just because lazy programmers don’t have to worry about installing and updating Web apps, it doesn’t make them great. I love the UIs of my desktop apps and wouldn’t exchange them for the inherently slow and less cool UIs of Web apps. I want to use my Internet connection to exchange relevant information (for example, sending emails, downloading songs), not to just download the stupid UI of a stupid Web app.

By: Vexemink

Vexemink — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:45:51 +0000

I reckoned moron with her cliterous, I hugely circled it with my finger, her lacy celebrity hairstyles eva longoria dealing my probing. Then they both went out into the broadcasting and over into the clitoridectomy ring where Maria gave the hot nude porn stars a 20 barbell work out melinda messenger sex tape the britney spears caught without under pants air decreasing over her presumably foggy body.

By: Shanti Braford

Shanti Braford — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:06:33 +0000

Who’s throwing $100 bills at who for writing web apps?

Besides 37 Signals, I really haven’t seen many case studies of companies launching hugely successful web applications.

Don’t get me wrong — I know I’m there. But quick, name 10 companies that make $50k or more each month from their web apps.

By: Mark Miller

Mark Miller — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:53:40 +0000

Just a guess, but I think what Metacircular is getting at is he wishes there was a better internet app. architecture than the browser for apps. The web browser was originally designed for static web pages and form submissions. Then javascript got added primarily to allow Java applets to interact with HTML. That’s what the technology was designed for. What you’re seeing today is the result of basically trying to jury-rig application architecture on top of this, rather than trying to create an internet architecture from the ground up that is actually supportive of apps. To date, of the web frameworks I’ve seen only RoR, Seaside, and maybe some of the Lisp frameworks actually do a good job of hiding the complexity of doing this so that programmers can focus on what they’re actually trying to create, rather than getting distracted by the hack that is the “web for applications”, and the plumbing.

One possible reconfiguration of the internet that is supportive of apps. are the RIA architectures that have come out in the last year or so. They’re primitive, and so they suck right now, but as they get better, we might actually get the best of both worlds: the HTML/CSS web for documents, and a “mini-GUI” inside the browser for web apps.

By: jdavid.net

jdavid.net — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:00:15 +0000

ok, so desktop apps going to the web is a bone head idea, but ok, how about we bring some of those Internet apps to the desktop?

How about trying to order something from amazon without an Internet connection, or bid on something at ebay. Or better yet, how about trying to build a facebook or myspace that is local.

The benefit of the web is that it is global and easy to get to, it also provides a rich social experience second to being their in person.

Trying to cross mediums with an idea is like trying to adapt a book to the cinema, and vice versa. The best of their breed rarely come from an adaptation but rather are created with the brush strokes that are natural to a medium. WEB APPS RULE when you are doing something that is unique to the web.

By: tim

tim — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:59:49 +0000

I like how you use Fog Creek as an example of how hard web apps are, when they were the ones saying (since before the dot-com bubble) that desktop apps are where it’s at. The only reason you can get Fogbugz as a web app is because people were begging them to make one.

Yeah, web apps suck. As long as people keep throwing these $1000 bills at me, though, I have little incentive to stop writing them.

Aw, fuck, here comes another suitcase. Have you tried the closet in the back?

By: Keith Williams

Keith Williams — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 20:52:13 +0000

Best example of link-bait I’ve ever seen.

By: greg

greg — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:38:27 +0000

Before anyone else says it trying to flame you: Google actually give you 6401 MB.

Overall great article and great points!!! For Apps where UI and Speed is key, making web apps is still a lot harder.

By: jack

jack — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:36:15 +0000

metacircular, I agree with nearly everything you’ve said. Unfortunately, I believe we’re both dinosaurs. Nobody cares about elegant code anymore, it’s just not a concern and very few “programmers” would even recognize it.
Efficiency? Ha! Who cares that you saved a few MB of RAM or if your query returns a set in .003 seconds instead of 3? Just blame it on network congestion or resource starvation on the server or whatever and move on.

The web browser is the new OS. A partially-incompatible, feature limited mess that has evolved and absorbed bits of dozens of competing technologies that have taken simple token passing and rendering WAY beyond anything invisioned by its inventors. It’s a mess to code for because it’s a mess of technologies. The outside reflects the inside.

Now, I’m sure the Fortran coders that came before us said many of the same things about minicomputers/microcomputers and that latest abomination, the GUI. But I’ll proudly say it — web app development is a mash of code, and unsatisfying to write. And you kids better stay off my lawn.

By: jc

jc — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 17:27:26 +0000

I like to build desktop applications that interface with web services. I give the users an option to work off line if they are not connected to the net. I also like applications optimized for their native o.s. “Writing desktop services that increase my productivity as a developer”, that makes me happy. I don’t really care if its in the “browser”.