Linked by mufasa on Mon 10th Aug 2009 12:25 UTC
Web 2.0 The web browser has been the dominant thin client, now rich client, for almost two decades, but can it compete with a new thin client that makes better technical choices and avoids the glacial standards process? I don't think so, as the current web technology stack of HTML/Javascript/Flash has accumulated so many bad decisions over the years that it's ripe for a clean sheet redesign to wipe it out.
Thread beginning with comment 377946
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

What's the point of that when you can invent new problems to solve on shaky foundations and put lots of effort into making concrete out of plaster?

For instance, we've had some pretty nice high-performance binary RPC mechanisms, but all the rage these days is XML-RPC over HTTP (via AJAX). Or even better, JSON. At least the acronyms sound cool.

Reply Parent Score: 3

google_ninja Member since:

XML-RPC makes sense sense for web services because a) it goes over port 80, which means less firewall headaches, and b) it is xml, which is designed to be parsable by anyone (including humans)

JSON makes sense because XML is incredibly verbose, and if you are communicating back and forth with javascript anyways you may as well be using its native object notation anyways. It still uses text, again, because you want it to work with web servers.

Binary RPC calls make sense when you control both the client and the server, and performance outweighs interoperability.

Reply Parent Score: 4

PlatformAgnostic Member since:

Why does that have to be the case? Even XML isn't so easy to parse, so people write reference implementations, etc. Why is a binary RPC system much worse? A human can't read it directly... but I don't really see why people are so enamored with reading data directly that is usually parsed only by machine, especially given that many folks crunch down the XML or JSON data anyway in order to transfer fewer bytes.

In my view, human-readable does not always mean 'interoperable.'

Reply Parent Score: 2