I'm not even sure what bit you're mad about, all of the web? You're plenty sharp enough to understand all of the diversity of quality of software is as present on the web as it is in all other kinds of software.
-
The implication there is that there's an alternative, non-web, way to implement that same functionality that would somehow magically be better. As if targeting something that isn't the browser is somehow cheaper (which, well, market rates on the app market indicate otherwise).
It would be much better, but not magic, in fact it would have way less magic, in terms of hand-waving blind trust that various barely-known-of layers will somehow do the right thing. Re cheaper, I am not sure what argument you are making there, it seems to be a context switch.
-
-
Re: cheaper - that was in response to person years/unit of function. The web is well known and extensively documented. And standardised, and democratised as a result. If arbitrarily fat clients were more effective and reliable and explicable, everyone would still be doing that.
-
The web and it's associated protocols are absolutely the most extensively documented and well known things in *all* of computing. I'm not really following the "hand wavey trusted" point at all.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.