|
Marc Clifton wrote: Personally, if you've never done web development before, and you have the time to discover just how awful it is
It's crazy but so true. The technologies are so kiddie-like compared to real development. Always the crux of the "average mindset" you know. But the web is a changing. We've only just begun to see what it's going to be in the future.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: But the web is a changing. We've only just begun to see what it's going to be in the future.
Agreed.
[ramble]
It seems like we're on the cusp of some very interesting things. The recent "Insider" posts on some of the AI work is quite intriguing in terms of turning information into knowledge. One thing that still bugs me though is how monolithic these applications are. For example, there's no way (that I know of) to automate the parsing of say, KickStarter projects, to things that just interest me. I have to actually visit the site and search for keywords. Same thing with all sorts of interesting information out there. What ever happened to the idea that web services would make information accessible to everyone? Another example: what I'm working on now with HOPE is to scrape the APOD site so I don't actually have to visit the site to see today's astronomy picture. Why should I have to visit the site? Why can't there be a web service that delivers the information directly to me? Why can't I take, say, a post in spaceflightnow.com, parse the text and do an automated lookup in APOD for relevant photos or deliver wikipedia content on related keywords? The ability to associate information from disparate sites is ridiculously limited to Google in a very manual way.
The web needs to become something much more alive, so that, for example, I could create correlated feeds on say, Ukraine, the latest political maneuverings, the global financial impact, etc.
How much longer do we have to wait for content to essentially "self-tag" so it becomes suitable for correlation and deep "computation?" Google must have that already, IMO, but is it exposed as a service for others?
[/ramble]
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: The web needs to become something much more alive, so that, for example, I could create correlated feeds on say, Ukraine, the latest political maneuverings, the global financial impact, etc.
You do realize, you just almost nailed on the head what Web 3.0 is going to be all about? In a high level nutshell, here are the philosophies behind "what the web is"...
Web 1.0
Gopher sucks. This public directory listing crap is like a phone book. We have phone books already! Let's take the concept, create HTML, and instead of one huge-arse public directory listing we're gonna get fancy. Sure its plain old static, stateless content. We can link to stuff, spruce it up with fonts and pictures. Basically really awesome looking documents that form a "web" like structure due to their interdependence on other public documents to create a "whole".
Web 2.0
Stateless documents suck. We've had JavaScript and hell even Java applets for a while. Flash wants in on the interactive action, but it's about as closed off as a nun in a bikini contest. So, let's run with this and get really dynamic - DHTML FTW! And while we're at it, let's make it a bit more personalized to seem more "alive". I want my users to know I remember their name and social status and especially their CC number. Hell let's even personalize ads. We're just that crazy. And while we're at it, let's take layout and design more seriously since we're tired of gloried word processor type documents. That ship has sailed.
Web 3.0
The web is growing up, we got hardware acceleration, multi-threading, and it's almost like we're a live development platform that magically exist somewhere out there in the magical "cloud". We're still interdependent on other sites to be a "web" much like a cell is alive and interdependent on another in the human body, but you know what would be cool, if everyone got their act together with standards so we can finally share real data. So these sites / cells could actually start working as one. We need a new buzzword of course, let's call this the Semantic Web[^], toss up Content Delivery Networks, etc, so people have access to everything always and start taking this web thing seriously.
In short, that's the exact direction it's heading, the web is just a slow moving beast (comparative to most technology that is). Even MS is getting their act together with standards, finally.
Jeremy Falcon
modified 29-May-14 11:29am.
|
|
|
|
|
From what I've heard, hotels are not early adopters in technology.
WPF has the following disadvantages:
1. It requires reasonably strong graphic cards.
2. It requires a Windows machine.
If you want to actually sell software to hotels, IMHO, it should be accessible to Android tablets, and to ancient (XP) Windows machines.
Just my two bits,
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: 1. It requires reasonably strong graphic cards.
2. It requires a Windows machine.
1. WPF doesn't seem to take too much power. I have a couple year old computer with just an integrated graphics card and I wouldn't think twice about running a WPF application.
2. You nailed it there. With WPF, you're definitely not targeting something that Android will like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surely that's easy, it depends whether the client wants a web app or a standalone desktop app?
|
|
|
|
|
Member 9244203 wrote: Both are great technologies but each has its own pros and cons? Any advice with which one to go with?
Short answer, the web and HTML5 is the future. Single-Page Applications are the future. It'll carry you further over the next decade than WPF will. Not to mention, you can have people on Macs and mobile devices use your software as well if you go the web route.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Member 9244203 wrote: Any advice with which one to go with?
Yes. Ask your potential users which type of app they would find more useful.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
I would ask one question, does the manager need to connect to the system from home? If you ask your client it will almost certainly be yes!
I am an old desktop developer who was delighted to find a similar capability on the web - Silverlight, then some stupid f***ing moron at Microsoft killed it. I'm afraid your commercial options are very limited, it will almost certainly have to be MVC on ASP.net.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
|
On a serious note, it's a good idea, but...as it says:
"..these insects are incredibly resourceful, and can deposit their eggs in tiny puddles of rainwater pretty much anywhere -- footprints, hoof prints, plant nooks, ditches, wheel ruts can all provide a home for thousands of mosquito larvae." so you're gonna need one per footprint.
Even .NET can't spread itself that widely...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent idea.
Super Lloyd wrote: Can it be driven by the tiny framework .NET?!
Instead of bubbling could BSOD on frequent intervals. 
Here today gone to Maui...
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: Instead of bubbling could BSOD on frequent intervals.
That would scare even the bears in the area, if any can be found 
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
|
|
|
|
|
The ultimate Critter Getter!
Here today gone to Maui...
|
|
|
|
|
Set yourself and your neighbours Free from the Memory of Critters.
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
|
|
|
|
|
I had an email from our council last year saying local residents were complaining about increased mosquitoes so could we add a teaspoon of cooking oil too all the water buts on the allotments to prevent them laying eggs in them.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
I was about to suggest this - mosquito larvae hang from the underside of the water surface and breathe through their backsides, which they poke through the surface of the water - this is why they can survive in stagnant water.
Oil on the surface clogs up their breathing gear and they suffocate.
=========================================================
I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka.
=========================================================
|
|
|
|
|
A true geek. Replaces a $0.05 solution with a $10.00 electronic solution. But it's neat. I like it!
Sort of like the guy working on a gizmo and his wife asks what he's building. He says "A device to let me see through walls."
His wife replies "Isn't that called a window?"
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent! Women can be annoying that way!! 
|
|
|
|
|
"Trust Henry to love legume, with new day, being circumspect around computers has virtues."(5,4,3,7)
Not hard, but sweet.
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
Faith, Hope and Charity
Faith - Trust
H - Henry
O - Love
Pea - Legume
ND - New Day
Char (it) y - Circumspect around computers
One day I aspire to having a signature.
|
|
|
|
|
Dalek Dave wrote: being circumspect
Please Dave keep it KSS
|
|
|
|
|
I like to throw shares around.
Cast Rations are great for other people.
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
