Posted Monday 7th July 2008 10:06 GMT
Thanks for shining a light on the murky world of this web 2.0 thingy. I have been baffled for ages.
I'd like to see more consise articles like this. Maybe one about the new internets they seem to bring out every 6 years that gets a brief mention on the TV with the line, "The internets is about to get it's biggest overhaul in 6 years tomorrow....". Is that like a Microsoft Update or something?
Or maybe one about those silver computers I see those trendy types using when I walk past the expensive coffee shop. Are they those iPods thingies? They can't be proper computers as I've never seen them play any games on them. Maybe they're just silver etch-a-sketch's.
Posted Monday 7th July 2008 10:06 GMT
Yet another laugh-out-loud funny précis of the way it is. :) Great way to start the week.
Posted Monday 7th July 2008 10:41 GMT
This article pretty much sums up my last few confusing years as a web developer; being surrounded by pretty flash-whizz-bang technology that has left me none the wiser and quietly coding HTML by hand in a corner, hoping nobody will see. Thanks Verity.
Posted Monday 7th July 2008 10:46 GMT
As Ever, right on the button.
Can we have the diagrams available as a powerpoint? I have a meeting this afternoon that the web 2.0 diagram would be very useful for manager baiting.....
Posted Monday 7th July 2008 10:57 GMT
I could really have done with this sort of clear, unbiased, in-depth overview of Web 2.0 back when I was writing web applications. If only because I'd have known to start throwing heavy objects at some of the decision-makers earlier on...
Posted Monday 7th July 2008 11:08 GMT
That Web 2.0 is the art of getting the browser to do a job it wasn't designed for, with little or no thought for what the end user may or may not actually want, whilst the tools that already do what we keep trying to get browsers to do - only quicker, neater and without need for Photoshop - either gather dust or are used to make horrible looking desktop solutions by people who think Pringle sweaters are in vogue.
Definition of Web 2.0 RAD: Really Aggravating Development
Posted Monday 7th July 2008 11:49 GMT
Or is that done by the 'web-site designer' (the person who will provide several 256k Mac shaped JPEGs of text and graphics, carefully laid out in borderless tables, sorry, absolute positioned DIVs)?
Posted Monday 7th July 2008 12:34 GMT
Where's the diagram depicting Web 3.0 (at least)
Some of us are at the bleeding edge already and need to stay ahead of the 8-ball (or something...)
Posted Monday 7th July 2008 12:39 GMT
"OpenLaszlo is an open source alternative to Flash." Really? Hmm.
Anyway, Web2.0 is as useful to me as religion, the law, and morals, because all of these things keep the sheep busy, looking the other way, not noticing me, which allows me to work, in complete secrecy, on what's really important: Web5.0. Suckers.
Posted Monday 7th July 2008 13:33 GMT
I know from painful experience how true this all is.
Posted Monday 7th July 2008 14:09 GMT
I've been dabbling with "AJAX" in a small way. Then I twigged that I wasn't using XML so that would be "AJA". But hey I wasn't using JavaScript either so now its "A". However I was using ActionScript 3.0 so my website will be powered by "AAS".
Posted Monday 7th July 2008 14:27 GMT
Whilst the satire is amusing if inaccurate (timelines etc, I won't be a pedant), as with all programming the devil really is in the detail.
This breakdown serves as little more than a management level overview of a topic that is vastly different from the picture painted here when actually investigated in any depth. Overviews are good, but overviews abstracted in to misinformation are not.
The whole world can't be judged by Delphi, and if you can't see why there are problems with the "more is more (who cares if it's all duplication!)" approach of the currently over cluttered PHP framework then any hope of a critical evaluation here is likely lost!
The disparate set of technologies involved in "web 2 point oh" are very awkward, but if encapsulated correctly can be managed well. Good code is possible in any language out there (yes, even VB!) if armed with sufficent knowledge, a better piece of advice would be "don't follow fads".
Posted Monday 7th July 2008 19:24 GMT
> However I was using ActionScript 3.0 so my website will be powered by "AAS".
Would that Action Script interact with the or be downloaded from the "Server Side" ?
If so then you can legitimately say you website is powered by "AASSS", although that probably makes it NSFW. As, indeed, any website using applets.
Posted Monday 7th July 2008 19:24 GMT
Oh, the wisdom from one so female. Such truth. It's enough to make a poor web developer weep.
Posted Monday 7th July 2008 19:35 GMT
Here's another one for your chart. Write your app as a purely server-side command-line application using whatever programming language, libraries etc. that you want. You can even put a curses forms interface on it if you want, and use escape sequences to get colour.
Once it's running perfectly on the server, "web-enable" it using Anyterm (http://anyterm.org/) - a Javascript terminal emulator! If you don't believe this could possibly work, have a look at the ASCII-art Tetris demo on the anyterm website.
(Disclaimer: I wrote it.)
Posted Monday 7th July 2008 20:39 GMT
Ahh sweet Verity. Such an intelligent, witty and insightful lass makes the heart go thump.
Let's see that uppity little miss Sarah Bee come up with something as clever as this.
Posted Monday 7th July 2008 20:39 GMT
I am that user. This is fucking spot on. I shall bookmark it thrice, to be sure.
Posted Monday 7th July 2008 22:37 GMT
"In Web 2.0, we are able to create a Rich Internet Application, and give the user the experience he deserves."
OK, the user might deserve it, but isn't it cruelty and unusual punishment anyway?
Posted Tuesday 8th July 2008 00:40 GMT
nnyees, methinks "this breakdown" is actually a satire. Or something. Anyhow, I think Ms. Stob is to be commended on staying so frightfully up to date and getting down with "da kidz".
http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/07/02/fig3.gif is pure class, as is its alt text.
Posted Tuesday 8th July 2008 00:40 GMT
I vote that Verity and Ms Bee have a wrestling match. They wouldn't be wresting in the conventional sense, however. Normal wrestling uses much less baby oil.
Do I require permission to print the contents of this article out and pin it to the office web devs wall board...?
Steven R
Posted Tuesday 8th July 2008 03:35 GMT
wow .. wowee.. this kind of clarity and mirth from a woman about web 2.0 ..the chauvinism-laced compliment no-doubt already telling you that I'm from the land-of-outsourcing .. well anyway, even if you don't want to .. that was a heck of an article..cheers and beers Verity
Posted Tuesday 8th July 2008 13:33 GMT
"Flex is the cheaper, techie-oriented IDE."
No, Flex is a set of open source components for developing Flash content (etc).
Flex Builder is a pay-for IDE (or Eclipse plugin) but there's always Adobe's free and open source command line compiler.
Posted Tuesday 8th July 2008 13:33 GMT
So there is nothing sensible to design the client with?
Posted Tuesday 8th July 2008 23:06 GMT
I wasn't having a nightmare. Web 2.0 is truly full of crap calls! If you want to have fun, try disabling JavaScript .. or doing 'fun' things like pressing stop while the page is loading. Some sites will barf completely if the javascript stuff doesn't fully load... which happens a lot, just check the CommunityServer forum section at thedailywtf.com, and revere the "tinyMCE not defined" errors.
The basic problem is that the HTTP/HTML combo was originally concieved as a WORM system (Write Once, Read Many) with limited interaction (POST forms) but stateless.
Then somebody either tried to imitate the reliable client/server apps, or the 3270 terminals, and the highway to hell^H^H^H^H Web2.0 was born...
Posted Friday 11th July 2008 08:02 GMT
I laughed my tits off!
Posted Friday 11th July 2008 08:02 GMT
Just to remind those of you who are neither:
If your smart you dont need to be rich. And you probably wont want to either!
Posted Friday 11th July 2008 20:15 GMT
I havent laucghed this much in such a long time!!! I want Verity's babies.. errr or is it that she wants mine and just doesn't know it...?
Cracking article anyway!!
Paris cos she looks so fine in Web 2 ;)
Posted Friday 11th July 2008 21:33 GMT
I agree with David Whitney. It was rather too long for a comedy piece.
On the strength of what people have been saying about it, I'm giving GWT a long close look. If all goes well, I'll be able to ditch the technology I'm currently using then I'll be just another Java coder. Then I won't need to write (or read) another line of JavaScript ever again because GWT does that for me. Oh, and the Java-to-JavaScript translator really does work (so I'm told). I bet Verity has never bothered using GWT to write actual applications.
Posted Tuesday 15th July 2008 13:06 GMT
This should have been included in the AJAX table.
Posted Wednesday 16th July 2008 10:34 GMT
...when it was first posted.
But then I came across Desktop Tower Defender and lost all track of time! Finally got round to finishing reading the article today.
Fantastic game! lol
Back to the article
