On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 03:16:26PM -0800, Michael A Nachbaur wrote: > On Friday 21 November 2003 12:58 pm, Adam Turoff wrote: > > These are the kind of toolkits toolsmiths want to write, but do they > > provide the kind of environment workaday hackers want to use? So far, > > the answer is a resounding "no". > > I believe the answer to this question is left up to the developers themselves. > Like the saying "If you build it, they will come", if a killer tool is > available, people will use it if it (a) meets the needs of the moment, (b) is > easier to do than the equivilant task using current tools, or (c) the > resulting application would be otherwise impossible or impractical to > implement any other way.
Quite true. Nevertheless, I find markup-based client toolkits to be non-starters, much like Plan9, BeOS or the new-and-improved AmigaOS compared to *nix. It's not that we don't need improvement -- we do, but the new tools just aren't hugely better than the status quo. Web-based apps *are* hugely better than 1990-style client-server development for a huge class of applications. "Phat" clients don't have the same order of magnitude improvement over other approaches. > I for one am implementing two applications in Mozilla XUL at the moment; > [...] > > The reason for this is simple; stock HTML just doesn't cut it for me. [....] Cool! The problems you describe with managing JavaScript compatability across multiple browsers is certainly the achilles heel of web-based apps. Going client-side is a reasonable way around that problem. There are other coping strategies, like forcing the use of only "supported browsers" (possible with intranet sites), or re-architecting the app to avoid problematic JavaScript features (possible with some apps). XUL is one way to get a client-side app written, and certainly not the only one. XUL does have advantages, but I don't see many developers (or many apps) taking that path. > [...] The fact that > the XUL and phat client developer community isn't as large as the > HTML/PHP/CGI community is comparing apples to oranges. [...] Well, that's the point of the comparison, isn't it? Kip's assertion is that phat clients are primed to take over the world, which bodes well for AxKit. My contention is that phat clients, while important, are a blip on the radar compared to webapps and traditional big clients. That the phat client community is small -- and will likely stay small -- clashes with Kip's argument. > I think this has largely to do with the fact that Mozilla for teh past few > years has been such a bloody slow beast that no one wanted to write > applications for it. I myself had a hard time, until Firebird became stable. > Now it's a joy to write for, even though the learning curve is pretty steep. The steep learning curve is one drawback, and quite a significant one at that. Switching from MFC to develop Win32 to your favorite language to develop web apps, the hardest thing you had to master was the print statement. That is order of magnitude reduction of effort is simply not present (yet) with phat apps, especially for those who are migrating *from* the web. > > (I'm waiting for someone to create a desktop app called AmazonShopper > > or something that de-clutters the shopping experience at Amazon. Or > > not, depending on what their license permits.) > > Check out http://mab.mozdev.org. It's a Mozilla app for searching / browsing > Amazon's product catalog. ;-) Cool! I'll check it out. Z. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
