Hacker News Reader

Comment by skohan | Hacker News Reader

> I personally think we should abolish JavaScript and not allow arbitrary remotely loaded code to execute on our computers.

Yeah this is honestly where I stopped reading. The ship has long-since sailed on this one - on-demand software clearly wins on utility over local software in most cases, a fact which is proven by how dominant web is over native software despite it's many shortcomings.

I actually think what we need to advance software is a better stack/tooling for web to bring it closer to the native experience. I.e. I can imagine a world where my laptop is mostly a platform for running WASM/WebGPU code downloaded from network on demand - and it would be nice if that type of software was not so reliant on the browser as a middle-man.

View on HN

I think we need BOTH a platform for on-demand apps AND a platform for documents with some dynamic content. That we've tried to put both together into one platform is, I think, part of the problem. I would like to be able to read the news on my phone without the cpu going to 100% and draining my battery. I would also like to be able to do collaborative document editing and video calls without having to install an app that takes up space even even I'm not using it. Today I feel both use cases suffer from running on a platform that tries to handle both.

Exactly. And I don't even think the separation would be hard on a technical level.

I spend a lot of time on websites where I rely on JavaScript (Google Maps, navigating GitHub etc.), but it's always the same handful of sites. Having a "Trust this Website" button to whitelist these places would totally work. Everyone else can serve me static HTML or lose me as a visitor. (I realize that's kind of what NoScript extensions achieve, but they're not a standard with enough momentum.)

In some sense I agree, but I think it's really difficult to understand where you would draw the line.

For instance, the modern web is a UX nightmare - every time you go to a site, you get bombarded with popups, requests to send notifications etc.

But how can you define which level of interactivity is allowed on a document without limiting creativity and the potential of the platform to grow?

For an extension like noscript or ublock, yes, it's hard to draw a line. One site uses one feature set, another site uses a different feature set, and if you draw the line around the union of those feature sets then it's too broad. Ads complicate things even more, because a simpler technology makes it easy to filter them.

I don't think the solution is in trying to draw such a line. I think the solution is to build something that covers 80% of the use cases, AND makes it sublimely easier than the technology we use today, AND is backed by someone with the power to deliver it to users.

There are examples in our history where we rejected a complex technology in favor of a simpler one, so there is some precedence. Remember HTML 3.0?

> a fact which is proven by how dominant web is over native software despite it's many shortcomings.

I wish it was, perhaps may be by numbers i.e. websites vs native software but if we take mobile ecosystem, native applications rule and many of the web pages are just landing pages for those mobile apps.

Smartphones are the first computers for majority of the world and significant population among them would have never opened a browser to enter an URL but perhaps would have used WhatsApp to click a link and opened it in built-in browser.

Even in web, mobile visitors has long overtaken desktop but again how much of it is organic i.e. direct or search when compared to those from social media, chat apps which again are likely to be native apps(and opened in built-in browser).

After a decade of developing mobile(native) apps for all major platforms I've quit native mobile app development and have started to focus my efforts back on web; My audience are intentionally those who wouldn't mind using a web application but I still occasionally receive questions from a new user like 'Is there an app for this'.

I strongly believe that until the duopoly in mobile ecosystem is fixed, Web is under serious threat.

> I wish it was, perhaps may be by numbers i.e. websites vs native software but if we take mobile ecosystem, native applications rule and many of the web pages are just landing pages for those mobile apps.

Largely because iphone doesn't let you install a proper browser that doesn't lack most features from the past decade, and iphone users is where the money is at so that is what companies targets.

Although iOS browser locking is troublesome and dangerous for free and open web it's not the reason for why native apps are preferred on smartphones; It's because mobile apps are easy to access, faster to use and Big Tech invest humongous amount of money in promoting those apps as it can siphon more data.

> mobile apps are easy to access

Easier than typing a web page once and then maybe clicking "add to my home screen"? Which is how PWAs work. They are great on Android, but iphone has deliberately not supported the standard.

> faster to use

Citation needed.

> Big Tech invest humongous amount of money in promoting those apps

Again, apple doesn't support the web, so companies that want to leverage web capabilities are forced to develop native apple apps.

Yes, that would be great! Except Apple deliberately hobbles their browser to prevent competitiveness with native apps.

But I guess that's the whole point of the discussion :)

> Apple deliberately hobbles their browser to prevent competitiveness with native apps.

It might be true that it’s not competitive but no evidence that it’s deliberate.

If it wasn't deliberate they would let you install Chrome instead of forcing you to use Safari with a chrome skin. And why do they have Safari with a chrome skin? Because then most gullible users thinks they can actually use chrome and that chrome and safari are mostly the same, when they are actually really different and they therefore don't understand what they are missing. Even here on HN where people should know better you sometimes see users say "if you don't like safari you can just install chrome!".

> If it wasn't deliberate they would let you install Chrome instead of forcing you to use Safari with a chrome skin.

Because browsers allow remote code execution and Apple wants to limit the attack surface.

This is about gullible users being protected from attackers by Apple.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com