James Toomey wrote:
> Somewhat off-topic rant: This isn't so much a dig at Rails but a
> critique of HTML in general. I've done web development with PHP,
> ColdFusion, and ASP, and being able to use Ruby in doing so
(especially
> with Rails' well-designed database interactivity) is certainly a
> welcome change. However, the general model is still the same, in
terms
> of using code to write out HTML to an essentially-static page. The
HTML
> interface is still such a far cry from the things you can do with a
> rich client. For ordering airline tickets on Travelocity or books on
> Amazon, the web works great, but imagine trying to emulate Adobe
> Photoshop via a web browser, or a spreadsheet like Excel.
> It seems to me that there needs to be a next-generation of HTML that
> enables web apps to truly be like rich client apps, and
> I don't think the solution needs to be a faster connection that sucks
> down the entire application in the form of massive Java applets every
> time I want to use the program. Perhaps the solution does need to be
a
> "computer" that's designed from the ground up as a web-enabled dumb
> terminal, but that has forms and controls optimized so that they
> require minimal data inflow to tell them what to do.
> To me, this would make the web incredibly more useful (and would put
> serious potential into the claim that Google wants to become a web
> operating system). If I've purchased Adobe Photoshop (or rented it,
as
> I'm sure will be the more likely model), instead of loading it on
every
> computer I use, why can't I get to Photoshop at any computer in the
> world merely by logging into my personal website and getting access
to
> every software program I own or am renting? Why would it need to be
> reloaded at every computer? This is particularly annoying when you're
> visiting a friend in another city for a weekend, and jump onto his
> computer to check email or show him how to do something useful, and
> think, "I wish I had App X loaded on here right now."
> I was disappointed to see Google Suggest being touted as innovative;
it
> seems to indicate that Google's going to stay within the existing web
> realm and not try anything really new (as I read on the web
somewhere,
> "for a web app, Google Suggest is neat; for a desktop app, it's so
> 1995"). For all of Google's deep pockets and reputation as
innovative,
> I expected to see them partner up with a hardware manufacturer and
try
> something dramatically different.