Isn't making or running desktop apps based on web languages

File: images-84.jpg (23KB, 378x389px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 378x389px

>>58686692
>autistic idea
No, it's a plebian idea...

>>58686692
>internet goes down in my area
>computer is as good as a doorstop until the connection comes back

Imagine this in any environment.

Why make apps on the web when you can make desktop applications that don't have handicapped performance?

>>58687302

> living in the third world

you don't matter

>>58687320
citrix is fucking expensive yo

>>58687407
even with Citrix, archaic licensing often prevents you from virtualization a fat client of any kind.

Speaking of running shit in the cloud my company just decommissioned it's last on-prem exchange server. we O365 now.

Not everything can be exposed in the public web anon.

>>58686692
Yep, it's a stupid idea but it happens anyway because of one of the following:

1) Web developers, a large and growing group of programmers, are more often than not too lazy and babyducked to learn how to create proper desktop applications

2) Companies are cheap assholes who want a works-everywhere solution at the cost of the user's resources, battery life, and experience

3) Indie devs who can't be bothered to write a clean, decoupled core for 2 or 3 lightweight native front ends to sit on top of and want to be cross-platform NOW


The ones that are desktop-electron only with no online equivalent are the fucking worst because I can't even run those in a Safari tab to bring resource consumption and battery burn down to moderately acceptable levels. Seriously, if you're going to do the whole webpage-masquerading-as-an-app thing at least use the web proper as your target instead of fucking chromium with its jupiter-sized ass.

>>58686692
>I mean, 99.99% of humans nowadays have internet access 24/7.
You are autistic.

>>58687949
I developed an application using nwjs for the desktop and I think your being unfair. It's an appealing prospect to put something together using web tools, you can achieve a lot more with a one man band using web tech then really any other combo of languages and frameworks and the results are cross platform by design. I'm not saying it's suitable for all use cases but there's many cases where it's just the most logical choice if you actually want to ship code in your lifetime. Also it's so nice to not have to worry about compatibility between different browsers and use html5 and css3 to its full potential. Don't forget we have web assembly now and webgl donuts not as slow as you might think. It's actually an insanely comfy way to work.

>>58689528
Comfy way to work, not use. Kill yourself webfag.

File: image-1094196-galleryV9-mwjq.jpg (145KB, 850x618px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 850x618px

Web is simple and easy to programm.
Javascript is easy.
Web works with everything. Windows, Linux, OSX, servers, anything.

We are heading to a future of a single computer language that is Javascript.

Soon you have you complie your autistic gentoo with javascript interpreters.

>>58689629

> NaN==NaN ---> False
> ((( Future )))

>>58687203
>>58687949
>>58689593
these

>>58689629
Nah, OSS purists hate desktop web apps just as much as most people ITT, and big software companies will never get into the style of pulling in 9001 dependencies developed by individuals on github.

>>58689629
>>58689528
It's just easier because you have more slow shit to build on.

However, if you had the choice - creating a whole GUI widget set as DOM nodes using CSS and js or drawing it natively, believe me, #2 is far easier.

>>58686692
Yeah it is.
But javascript, html and css are the only things web devs know.
This is the same reason why full stack javascript became a thing.

>>58689447
No, he is retarded and bad at statistics.
50% of humans can literally not afford food.

>>58689528
>I think your being unfair
>can into basic engurishu
>gives opinions on programming
>>>/out/

>>58689629
>a future of a single computer language that is Javascript.
If this happens, I'm moving somewhere with no intelligent life, like Mars or most of Asia/Africa.

File: 1463061905756.jpg (98KB, 620x520px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 620x520px

>>58689861
>html and css are the only things web devs know.
What the hell?
I thought those are among basic things every programmer should be able to comprehend.
What is a developer which only knows basic things?

>>58690825
>What is a developer which only knows basic things?
Cheap, often good enough.

It's a fine idea but a horrible implementation. I got into Electron thinking that I'd be one of the sane people who would be considerate and keep things slim.

There's no slim way to have Chromium running as a mere foundation for what is often a very simple application. It was fun but I'll stick to my SPAs.

>>58689629
>Web works with everything.
Because you work at a very basic level?

browsers need to die but not by making "native" programs that depend on chromium and written in javascript

>>58686692
what would you do if electricity goes out and you want to use the pc?

>>58687302
Electron apps don't require a connection to run

>>58689528
First off, I don't find the difference that huge. To me, Cocoa on the Mac is easier to develop applications in than any sort of web stack and Qt isn't too far behind. Shipping an app with these is just as fast as doing so with web junk if you know what you're doing. Bonus: you have an extensive library of standard widgets to use so you don't have to futz around creating your own or dealing with halfassed third-party widget sets.

And even if it is easier, I find it irresponsible as a dev to trade away 300MB+ of memory, battery life, etc for your own damned convenience. Develop quality or don't develop at all.

>>58686692
>making UIs suck
>Web developers spent 20 years making UI development less horrible.
>hurr durr muh autistic language.

If you need to create a desktop application with rich UI you will need to use web technologies.

>>58689528

But that's not the problem man. It's not like we don't appreciate that HTML5 and friends are crossplatform. It's that it seems like a completely stupid idea to not do directly on the web because the advantages of doing it offline are extremely limited while the advantages of doing it online are usually very clearly better.

Basically for the main problems are

1) Hugely more complicated because it need an installation, the other needs 0 installation

2) Hugely less secure because I have to "open source" it no matter what, maybe with some exceptions that reduce performance by 50% at least.

3) It practically becomes more complicated to me personally (compared to just doing it online).

PS. For the record, I won't be using any of the solutions in the near term, I'll stick with Visual Studio based WPF solution but if I wanted to migrate to something "simple and cross-platform" and I'd just go pure web.

>>58690864

For me it's even more basic-wide picture reason on why it's a shitty solution. It's simply not required, and it adds complexity that is not required and it's even way less secure since in most cases you are forced to "open source" everything behind the application. I mean, sure I appreciate someone wanting something simple based on HTML5 and friends but at the end of the day if you are going to go that route, just go that route fully, it's really not gonna reduce your player base by more than like 2% in 99% of cases by sending them to the web and you will gain way more than what you lose by reducing the complexity to the user (and to the developer actually!).

>>58690930

Explain. How?

>>58691917

WPF with XAML is also fucking amazing and way more applicable to a real desktop but sadly it's Microsoft. And it's not a problem that it's Microsoft per se, but it's Windows only. If they had it open source or open standard that shit is the shit

>>58691917
>rich UI
If by this you mean wooshy animations all over the place, novel user interactions, and embedded media all you really need is a modern opengl-capable UI toolkit like Qt.

>>58690864
>There's no slim way to have Chromium running
/thread