Skip navigation

Let me call your attention to two most telling articles. The first one is about bigG and it’s browser and the other one is about Adobe’s first very own release of Flash. It all sucks. Right, i said it.

Let’s begin with Flash. It’s got a 3D API. Do i need to say anything else?

Flash begun it’s path to glory as a means to push animation through the very low bandwidth of the internet of yore, it was a cool thing because it was lightweight. It was supposed to be very light.

Now whenever i see my computer starting it’s fan i can go around and will certainly find a browser window with some flash running. Flash became a HOG. It is heavy, it is full to the brink with features (A.K.A. bloat), and it wants to be everything to everybody.

Well, that’s not so bad, is it? After all, HTML has become everything to everyone through the web, has it not?

Which brings me to the other article, on OS News, which is a commentary on the state of the web of sorts, which went on-line just days after Google launched Chrome, despite being mostly written earlier. It does a very, very cool analysis of BigG and you should really read it if you are interested in the net or the web at all.

Bat what drives me nuts is that he says As for me, I just hope it will happen in 2009 so I will be able to put a nail into coffin of HTML and move on. Hell, I’ve been waiting for this since 1998… He is saying that, well, developing applications based on HTML and JavaScript is not so cool, after all, and there are better options (our bloated Flash, alluded above), and in the near future we will no doubt be doing things in other ways.

Which basically amounts to: yes, Flash is a monster and we should all bow down and use it and be happy. Or give me something akin to Flash.

What i am trying to say is: there is a trend in the web and it is not good! and this trend is to make everything more complex, more serious, more developer-oriented, more splashy and full of effects, more good-sounding-to-investors, and it all sinks. More to the point, it all goes contrary to not only what were the presumed philosophy of the web, but also to what makes it thick.

To exemplify: Bitland says MS will probably find “automagical” ways to make every Silverlight app export it’s content directly to Live Search (or provide an API!) and that would be a big strike on BigG, that BigG is trying to fight the development of other platforms for “Rich Internet Applications” because this makes searching more difficult…

But let’s not forget that it was the creation of HTML that made search plausible at all. In other words, you can develop ways to index applications, and you can provide APIs for that, and you can go as complex as you like, but if search is an API or a protocol (as opposed to just one more way to use the underlying system) it does not make much sense. It was the fact that HTML exposed everything as content that made search relevant at all.

In this sense, Bitland is right that an ecosystem of RIAs only (depending on technologies like FLEX or Silverlight) would hurt Google. But it would hurt everyone else too. It would hurt the web.

And i do not mean that because of search. The thing is: to play to an common least denominator (in the case of HTML: ASCII and now UTF-8 but not quite still there) actually is a good thing. Interface is data, or we could make interface to become data and it worked. It was a good thing to make interface data, despite it making no sense at first sight.

It is a overused example, i know, but when you are installing linux from a very old CD you can still fire lynx and browse from the command line. It works.

And more than that, HTML allowed things that worked throughout the whole ecosystem. From the lynx to the Palm Blazer (the worse browser ever to the full blown os-based-on-XULrunner. It is the “degrade gracefully” thing, and it kinda works, in the end. The very idea is meaningless once you give up HTML and “just move on” to a “better platform”. HTML is not a platform, it is a data format. And it is enough.

I am not saying that we must abandon JavaScript and that websites should not be “applications”. I am not even saying that sites are not primarily apps. They are, and they have actually been since the beginning.

But to say “OK, time’s up for that HTML fling, let’s move on to serious applications” is a mistake. It is a step backwards, instead of forward. Even is, feature-wise, HTML is lacking. It is not features that matter, but what you can do with the technology. And in that regard, the least common denominator approach worked wonders.

If the web was supposed to go the path of the framework, there were other more suitable approaches, eons ago. The difference between Gohper and HTML was that Gopher was actually more a framework and HTML more a data format.

But, let me stress this again, this “trend” of viewing the web as a “framework” is not constrained to Bitland Prince’s (actually very good) article. It is everywhere. But in the end it is not a “trend”, it is just a salesman pitch by people that are actually not at the center of the storm (but wish to be). Thus Adobe thinks that JavaScript should go the ActionScript way.

Simply put, they want to transform ECMA into C++. And that can only make sense from a salesman perspective, but from the language perspective, actually from any language perspective it is simply madness. JavaScript has a lot of interesting features and, instead of thinking about them, they want simply to make it buzzword-rich, they want to throw at it every possible “serious” concept and make it “respectable”, in ways that could only and certainly blow everything it might have of good. Man, JavaScript was originally thought of as “Scheme in the browser”, for Xris’ sake!

Basically, they want to make “JavaScript” into “just Java”! Look out: they want “real classes”, they want namespaces, they want… All of which Java already had, you could always run Java in the browser and it never flew. This was actually a good example of a technology that sunk like a rock. They had all the buzz in the world and Java still went to become more or less forgotten in the browser space.

But, basically, the new ActionScript is just that, they trying for the “big serious” language when the small curious one rockz more. Can no one see it?

This trend is not an native (or “natural”) development. It is just some people trying to go on and profit over somethings they do not understand. Not wanting to go a “Die Corporations Die!” line here, but all this is emphasizing the “respectable” side instead of the “creative” one. In the end it stresses the “useful” in the short term but becomes “useless” in the long run. And that sucks.

I don’t think this is the apocalypse and that the Web is doomed, but i do think we should start trying to see “trends” in more creative ways, with curious eyes. We need to ask “why HTTP WRITE method didn’t happen?” instead of “which new APIs are needed?”…

One Trackback/Pingback

  1. […] must create new possibilities out of nothing, just like for example the “web 2.0” or the Enlightenment or Nietzsche or, you know, the guys who dare to look out of the box […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: