Post #138,867
1/30/04 2:27:27 PM
|
One company decides web apps aren't cutting it
[link|http://news.com.com/2100-1016-5150019.html?tag=cd_top|http://news.com.com/...9.html?tag=cd_top]
Online bank Egg is considering a move away from pure Web interfaces for its customers, in a shift that will have implications for developers as well as customers.
If Egg, which made its name as a pure online bank with no physical branches, takes this route, those among its 3 million customers who want to make the most of the bank's features would have to run the Windows operating system.
"Today, Egg is primarily Web-based," said Chief Information Officer Tom Llube, addressing the Developing Software for the Future Microsoft Platform conference at London's QEII Conference Centre this week. "But going forward, we will have to move it to smart-client-based solution."
------
I can't make up my mind if this is potentially smart or fuckwitted. I agree that the web for app development blows chunks. I think it depends on how its done. From the sound of it, I'd say its going to go the fuckwit route.
But it could be good if they focus on portable clients - like flash based UIs or the wxThing. Certainly claiming that something like person to person video conferencing is only available on windows is madness with things like iChat with iSight floating around.
Or app development could be done in something like VisualWorks. Portability - its out there. You just have to shake the BB's (BillyBallys) out of your eyes to see it.
.....To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone -- to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone:
.....From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink -- greetings!
-- George Orwell, 1984
|
Post #138,872
1/30/04 2:53:16 PM
|
Supplies! said the Chinaman
It's BASIC for the new millenium!
-drl
|
Post #138,876
1/30/04 3:00:36 PM
|
Hmmm.
But, he said, the bank will move away from the current "one size fits all" model to having a range of services suited to different types of users. "So, if I have a critical mass of users on Longhorn who expect a different class of experience, we will cater for them, but we would support the others." This is perfect MSFTism. "Sure, you can use something other than Windows, but look what you give up." bcnu,
Mikem
I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
|
Post #138,891
1/30/04 3:40:57 PM
|
What about me?
So, if I have a critical mass of users on Longhorn who expect a different class of experience, we will cater for them, but we would support the others. I'm not a Longhorn user, and I expect the same class of service. Why should Longhorn users expect a better class of service? Do Porche drivers expect a better class of road? ===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #138,918
1/30/04 4:24:53 PM
|
Re: Porsche drivers.
Do Porche drivers expect a better class of road?
No. They think they own them.
bcnu,
Mikem
I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
|
Post #138,927
1/30/04 4:42:11 PM
|
Better analogy than I thought
Windows users think they own the (internet/computer industry/foo) and that the rest of us should just get out of the way.
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #138,877
1/30/04 3:11:47 PM
|
I prefer a slightly different vocabulary.
I can't make up my mind if this is potentially smart or fuckwitted. I agree that the web for app development blows chunks. I think it depends on how its done. From the sound of it, I'd say its going to go the fuckwit route. Emphasis mine. IMO, as long as we use the term "application" (app), we've lost any opportunity for cross-platform development. As long as we develop applications, we lose to Microsoft. When we provide services, they become Just Another OS. Semantic, perhaps, but semantics enable power structures. So, yes, the web for app development blows chunks. For delivering services? It's the best thing out there if only for its ubiquity. Sometimes, Ignorance should be Strength. I was one of the original authors of VB, and *I* wouldn't use VB for a text
processing program. :-) Michael Geary, on comp.lang.python
|
Post #138,884
1/30/04 3:28:47 PM
|
Dude, .Net Web Services.
bcnu,
Mikem
I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
|
Post #138,912
1/30/04 4:12:34 PM
|
What did I just say? ;)
"Semantics enable power structures". Whoever told MS, "services are cool" may have been on the ball. However, when MS uses the term ".Net Web Services", they are just doing the embrace and extend dance again--they're simply shoehorning applications into the service model. I'm using "services" as an opposite to "applications"; they're using it as a delivery vehicle for applications. Big difference.
I was one of the original authors of VB, and *I* wouldn't use VB for a text
processing program. :-) Michael Geary, on comp.lang.python
|
Post #138,977
1/30/04 9:09:35 PM
|
Why does it have to be all or nothing?
They could leave some on the web, and some with something else. The web is pretty good for interactive reports, but poor for complex data-entry, for example.
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #139,001
1/30/04 10:32:58 PM
|
For once I agree with you
A company of that size should not have to have one interface. If they design the software right, the user interface should be as replaceable as skins.
|
Post #140,661
2/9/04 2:08:07 AM
|
Wrapping UI not easy
If they design the software right, the user interface should be as replaceable as skins.
I am not sure it is that easy. Each UI kind has its own nuances such that you cannot translate one-to-one without oddities or living with the lowest-common-denominator. For example, in VB you had a "combo-box" which is a pull-down list with the option of typing your own text. There is no HTML equivalent or one-size-fits-all substitution.
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
