undefined | Better HN

0 pointsyoudontknowtho8y ago0 comments

i disagree with one premise...web apps werent ever seen as a more secure alternative to windows apps. they were seen as easier to deploy. that was netscapes big threat to MS. You could deploy an app to a large audience easily. its hard to get across how hard things were back in the day. citrix came out as an option as well...same deal. easier to deploy.

people really thought activex was brilliant...until security became an issue. i can remember when the tide changed.

anyway, fair points otherwise. cheers.

0 comments

pmontra8y ago

Agreed. They are easier to deploy, even multiple times per day. This is one of their selling points even today compared to native mobile applications, which have other advantages.

Another advantage is that they are inherently available across OSes, usually across different browsers (but we know what it takes.)

Finally, they used to be much more easy to develop.

Tldr: larger audience, less costs.

j458y ago

I agree. Web apps were easier to deploy, centrally manage and deliver over desktop, assuming you had a stable connection. In fact it was often hard to get people to run apps on the web because internet was wither slow or ADSL was unstable. SaaS was considered risky.

The true definition of a full stack developer in those days would make today's definition of full stack faint.

You had to know how to setup hardware with an os with your software and databases, often having to run your gear in a datacentre yourself that you had to figure out your own redundancy for, all for the opportunity to code something to try out. Being equally competent in hardware, networking, administration, scaling and developing a web app was kind of fun. Now those jobs are cut into many jobs.

Activex was what flash tried to be.. The promise of Java of using one codebase everywhere.

Seeing webassembly is exciting.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse