Re: webapps, why so hard

In article
<43aaa347-c2c3-4b06-a836-7ef531053fb9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
vanekl <vanek@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Web programming is harder than one-platform programming of the past,
for the following reasons.

1. the output must work on a number of platforms (browsers), which
adds complexity, each of which may either interpret the standards
differently, or only implement a subset of features.
2. in most cases, web-app input is text that must be parsed in order
to respond. Some languages require you to create the classes that are
able to respond to the inputs at run-time and for each request, which
requires code/complexity.
3. the client platform is unstable, limited in resources, and in some
instances, uncontrollable. E.g., ever try to create 5,000 non-trivial
javascript objects in IE? Or a flash model with (200) 3D surfaces in
actionscript? Neither will make it out of alpha unless the developer
has extremely low UI standards.
4. the wire: it forces serialization in order for computers to
communicate, which forces compliance to all manner of standards if you
want reliable communication.
5. security: security used to mean just password management and
attention to a few details like buffer overflows and sql injection
attacks. Not only does the web create a larger attack surface, but it
allows greater access for a much larger population of malcontents and
script kiddies.
6. www was originally designed for document display, and we've
misappropriated it as a programming platform.
7. since HTTP is both stateless and must serve the world, much more
attention has to be made to efficient coding practices and caching
techniques.
8. international standards: before the web, utf-8/16 and localization
were afterthoughts, at best.
9. bandwidth constraint changes everything
10. centralization: now defensive coding for maximal uptime is
required, and, if there's a failure, all your clients (if not the
entire world) may see it. Added visibility requires additional
developer time if their employer cares about the corporate reputation
the software may tarnish.

Not sure how the OP ties this into Lisp.

He doesn't. He is a troll.

--
In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless,
but planning is indispensable - Dwight E. Eisenhower
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Firewall of SP2 is good?
    ... It's always easier to create your own standards than ... It's the marriage of the browser ... members, developers, and people in Redmond that were part of the core ... >> different than any other platform before it. ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: webapps, why so hard
    ... Web programming is harder than one-platform programming of the past, ... has extremely low UI standards. ... misappropriated it as a programming platform. ... attention has to be made to efficient coding practices and caching ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Cross-platform development
    ... would cover the flavor specific details. ... platform to another, and they help a great deal for some of the items ... I'm a firm believer that vendors won't really collaborate ... on standards because it's not really in their best interest to do so. ...
    (comp.databases.pick)
  • Re: interface
    ... interfaces are defined by the POSIX standards family. ... Please show me a platform independent plain C++ implementation ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Portability, where?
    ... > on GNU/Linux without ever concerning on standards ... > I must use lots of platform specific system calls. ... > 1) Is portability and adhesion to the standards ... A GUI written for your Windows PC probably won't port to you cell phone. ...
    (comp.lang.cpp)