Insteresting news of web apps come from google



  • According to this site "web apps":http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/17/google-introduces-portable-native-client-makes-it-easier-for-developers-to-add-c-and-c-code-to-their-web-apps/

    We could write web applications “that are truly architecture-independent.” + "it will allow developers to write high-performance apps that offer near-native speeds". Maybe in the near future the apps developed by Qt could run on android, ios or other platforms as long as those device has google chrome with near-native speeds.

    Do this mean the new era of apps will come?Like Mobile apps replace a lot of market of desktop apps, will the better web apps eat the majority markets of the mobile apps too?

    Whatever, this only support chrome and not mature yet, but if it do become mature, would it be a huge impact for the mobile apps like steve said?The biggest rival of mobile apps are web apps?


  • Moderators

    There is a Qt5 port (unfinished) for old NaCl. It's promising but not all that rosy (NaCl does not allow all system calls + Qt libraries are quite big, so they would have to be available on the clien side, probably).



  • What google calls applications is basically webpages. Having "portability" for such "apps" is about as impressive as the portability of the txt format.

    I really wonder when will the industry stop overselling everything...



  • I don't see any point in the article. If your app need c/c++ why go for the native client and browser ? Simply use a native cross platform tech like Qt. Google has always making these kinds of comments like ' The web won ', as if there has been a battle going on between web and native apps. You have to choose whether you developing native or web depending the project's requirements. Google's business revolves round various web services. They always shout web, web .... I don't see any point in putting every application into a browser. This is an example of companies pushing technology in the wrong direction.



  • A little bit dissapointed about the news if it is really overselling, as an micro developer, I feel happy because we may have one more open market to sell our apps(although I don't know web technology).



  • That's what companies do - do something mediocre, then make a lot of noise, blow it out of proportion and pretend it is the best thing ever. The end result - people find even the most mediocre things exciting, like a 6 months old product gets a new case color and somehow that is amazing.

    I don't see why Qt can't be used for web applications - you can get QML from the web, you can get and load native plugins as well, the difference is you won't be using a lame HTML browser that needs 500 MB of ram to open a few tabs and will use a QML "browser" instead. I bet my ass it will be smaller, faster and far more efficient than any of the current "web" solutions.

    I am on the full opposite side of google, the web is a mess, inefficient, bloated, fragmented, plagued by partial implementations and incompatibilities. I have 20 tabs open right now, with combined content hardly exceeding 10 MB in total, and yet the browser uses 800 MB of memory. This is ridiculous...



  • [quote author="utcenter" date="1369747224"]I don't see why Qt can't be used for web applications - you can get QML from the web, you can get and load native plugins as well, the difference is you won't be using a lame HTML browser that needs 500 MB of ram to open a few tabs and will use a QML "browser" instead. I bet my ass it will be smaller, faster and far more efficient than any of the current "web" solutions.[/quote]

    Some days ago I found this very cool "project ":http://qt-project.org/forums/viewthread/4347/ I still haven't check it with very attention, but I can see myself using QML to create small websites. It would be very nice to load a QML project from a html file, and run it on a browser.



  • But why would you want the bloated browser in the first place? Just take a look at webGL - performance is pathetic, just like everything else "web" related. There is nothing cool about your applications running like cr@p...

    Besides, being a "web" application simply means it runs over the web, it does not imply an HTML browser, nor does it need one. A QML browser will be just as much a web browser, plus it will have better performance. Trying to plug it all into HTML is an unnecessary drag...

    As for porting QML to HTML - it seems another pointless endeavor, HTML provides a fixed set of functionality, everything else you have to use JS for. If you want to port "native" QML elements to HTML, you will lose all the performance and efficiency benefits.

    I reckon the other way around makes more sense - port HTML to QML - this way users will be able to browse HTML content as well as QML content. The limited HTML set can easily be implemented in QML.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Qt Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.