RE: GUI development language

["albartell" <albartell@xxxxxxxxx>]

> If both browser and fat client are equaly good for the user, 

Well, that is what I am trying to find out Raul.  That's a big *if* - do you
have such an example of an excellent browser app?  We keep going down the
rabbit trail of what is good and bad about deployment - I simply want to
discuss solid UI's for the user, and THEN we can get into deployment issues.
I think most people's love for browser is ease of deployment which is an
appropriate love from an IT perspective.

One of the closest I have seen is Zimbra's email browser client, which I
would consider ahead of Outlook Web Access.  Demo can be found here:
http://www.zimbra.com/products/hosted_demo.php.  Actually, after reviewing
this site again (haven't been to it in about 1 year) it has gotten much
better.  I still prefer the raw no-wait power of Outlook.  When I am
pounding away in an application all day long, ANY lag can get annoying.
Rich client apps can many times get away from this simply because of what I
would term "better/faster rendering engines".

> And last but not least: *security*.  Both ways you have concern, but often
people put all the business logic in the fat client because it is easier for
them.
This is why I say "well developed" in my posts, because most of the
population would agree that putting business logic on your desktop isn't a
good idea.

Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com


-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Raul A. Jager W.
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 3:58 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: GUI development language

albartell wrote:

> > 4- Fully agree, there is a very small group of applications that still
workbetter in a fat client, most application will work better in web.
> >    
When an application looks good, is fast, gives clear error messages,
provides help where needed, then it can not be developed better in a fat
client.  Sure, you can do someting as good, but not better.
If both browser and fat client are equaly good for the user, you need to
consider other factors, like easy to maintain, easy to extend to more users,
to other OS. 
And last but not least: *security*.  Both ways you have concern, but often
people put all the business logic in the fat client because it is easier for
them.

> > Raul, do you have examples of solid browser applications that couldn't 
> > be developed better in a fat client?  Note that we aren't talking 
> > reporting tools (i.e. display only applications).
> >
> > I feel like there is a sector of people here that carry two things 
> > around in their pockets - left pocket=water bottle, right 
> > pocket=browser Kool-Aid; and whenever you need a lift you quickly mix 
> > the two and announce to the world that HTML/CSS/Javascript are better 
> > than what one could develop in a thick client?
> >
> > Can ANYBODY give me an example application?  Does somebody have one 
> > within their walls that I could see in a private meeting (I have a 
> > GoToMeeting.com account I can use so I can see your screen)?  I just 
> > want to see what others are developing that surpasses a thick client 
> > simply because I have NOT seen anything like what is being said here.
> >
> > Just because the browser has had a lot of success in the last 5 years 
> > doesn't mean that it is somehow now better than thick clients for
enterprise
> > applications.   I wont argue that you could create a reasonable
application
> > in the browser that is pretty fast and can insert and update 
> > information in a database, but to say that it is better than a well 
> > developed thick client equivalent seems off to me.
> >
> > Aaron Bartell
> > http://mowyourlawn.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Raul A. Jager W.
> > Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 2:00 PM
> > To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
> > Subject: Re: GUI development language
> >
> > There are a few, very few applications for which it is better to run 
> > locally.  I don't have a "crystall ball" but it seems that web is 
> > taking over and with time passing you will have fewer...
> >
> > Now respect to your points:
> > 1- MS has resources, but its goal is to lock users into windows, not 
> > to free them to use other OS.
> >
> > 2- Typicall business application (display account, balances, etc. 
> > record purchases, paymentes, etc.) uses JavaScript to improve 
> > usability, not as a critical part.  My experience is that pages in web 
> > take between 50 and 300 miliseconds, not 3 secconds.  It is true that 
> > a 10 green screen program will translate to 10 web programs, but also 
> > 10 green screens will take much more than a second.
> >
> > 3- Neither says "al green screen shoud be replaced by fat clients"
> >
> > 4- Fully agree, there is a very small group of applications that still 
> > work better in a fat client, most application will work better in web.
> >
> > 5- In case you work with people who only know windows, web looks very 
> > complicated, slow, etc.
> >
> >    

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe,
or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a
moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.