this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
71 points (94.9% liked)

Programming

21571 readers
173 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

What's your guys general thought on how everything is web based now? For me, I don't really like it. I would just rather have an actual program that runs. But I am merely a user, not a programmer.

top 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 2 points 2 hours ago

I hate it. It's useful for enterprise systems, since the people using that often need to access it from any device. Image/video/sound editing? Let me have an installed program and DON'T MAKE IT FUCKING ELECTRON. Most of the things I use don't connect to the internet, so I'd have to self host anyway, so I'd rather have the full application rather than run a localhost server.

As someone who 3D prints as a hobby, I prefer Chitubox over Lychee because the latter is an electron app, plus they force a 30 second ad wait when you click "slice".

[–] kryllic@programming.dev 3 points 3 hours ago

I understand the convenience, but I don't like it. All my data is on someone else's computer, and I have to enable activity trackers for the privilege of accessing my data? Heck nah.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

If the major OSs could treat a web browser instance like a separate app, I wouldn't hate it so much. Like I want a dedicated thing on my taskbar/dock that will always take me to my google calendar. I hate having to search through browser windows (even when named) to find the right one.

I use a seperate browser for aws console to make it quicker to find.

But I do love being able to have more than one tab per app (like for aws console) which most standalone apps don't support.

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

you can create shortcuts of web addresses and it'll open that address in your default browser

[–] Typewar 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I used to be like this too. I thought it would be too mainstream to have a website rather than a natively compiled application running on the computer...

And then my friend in high school started this thing on his laptop.. a website.. it was server side rendered.. pretty satisfying... Then it took off...

I think the web can be nice with the right mix. I'm personally not too fan of these pages that are just white if you don't turn on JavaScript. It's just a feeling, nothing special. From a business perspective it makes sense, to throw all the rendering to the devices to save cost.

[–] GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

From a business perspective it makes sense, to throw all the rendering to the devices to save cost.

Not just to save cost. It's basically OS-agnostic from the user's point of view. The web app works fine in desktop Linux, MacOS, or Windows. In other words, when I'm on Linux I can have a solid user experience on apps that were designed by people who have never thought about Linux in their life.

Meanwhile, porting native programs between OSes often means someone's gotta maintain the libraries that call the right desktop/windowing APIs and behavior between each version of Windows, MacOS, and the windowing systems of Linux, not all of which always work in expected or consistent ways.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago

What "mere users" wanted used to be the prime directive for software development. Now it's whatever scheme the marketing team comes up with.

[–] zerofk@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 day ago

Am programmer. Hate it.

[–] Kissaki@programming.dev 11 points 1 day ago

A bit too broad to give a specific answer from my side.

Overall, I prefer web based over apps, because I can CSS hack and if necessary JS hack them.

Web also means it doesn't litter my PC or mobile phone or tablet. And that it can't fetch more data than it needs or I want it to have access to.

Bad software is bad software, no matter if it's installed or on the web.

[–] mvirts@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

It's terribad, the only glimmer of hope is web assembly and the related apis, but ultimately it's just adding another layer to the onion that will eventually have sensitive data and important interfaces to protect and require yet another layer on top.

Also it's a sneaky way of exploiting foss without contributing back.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Worse features with worse accessibility, reliability and horrible efficiency.

Surprise, a Document Object Model is not ideal for building User Interfaces.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 5 points 1 day ago

I get all the advantages (portability and distribution mainly) but I also think we did the transition to web in the worst possible way. We basically took all the shitty solutions that were there 20 years ago and started improving them gradually at the same time as we moved everything to web. The result is that web apps are security and privacy nightmare.

What I think should have happened is that some standardized execution environment should have been defined that would use HTML/CSS for rendering but would also apply strict security. I would base it on web assembly, not javascript. You would be able to embedded this environment in a browser or install it at OS level. It would download an app package from a domain and by default only allow network communication with that domain. Everything else would have to be approved by the user. Basically something like web based android apps but stricter or Electron but lighter and distributed over the web. Instead of doing that we've spend 20 years perfecting lazy loading of JS scripts so that each website can have 400 trackers. And yes, I know we can do it now with Tauri but it's not very common.

[–] nous@programming.dev 66 points 1 day ago (2 children)

For a lot of things I would rather have something web based than app based. I hate having to download some random app from some random company just to interact with something one time. Why do all restaurants, car parking places etc require apps rather than just having a simple site. Not everything should be native first IMO.

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 14 points 1 day ago

Yeah there are pros and cons. Desktop apps are not sandboxed. Mobile apps are often missing features and are annoying to install. Websites often have poor performance or janky UX on mobile, and you need to be online, and you don't have control of their availability.

I think the best option depends on what the thing is - ordering food from a random pub? Web site. Video editing? App.

[–] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I should clarify i meant this more for computing rather than mobile. I do not like mobile half assed apps.

[–] Mischala@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 day ago

I agree that it can suck.
Many webapps are frustrating as all hell.
But I would rather one webapp with effort behind it than several shoddily implemented and pooroy maintained applications for various platforms.

[–] fzz@programming.dev 3 points 1 day ago

Personally I really don’t like it too. But I just don’t care because:

  • I have all needed software locally
  • I have all documentation locally
  • I’m going to Web only to get updates (by-hands of course, no autoupdates without verification!)
  • I’m old software engineer and how to automate it all without losing ctrl ;)
[–] jaykrown@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

People don't like downloading things unless they absolutely have to. It immediately puts a weight against anyone using what you've created. With web based, there's nothing to download, and it works on any platform that can run a browser.

[–] ulterno@programming.dev 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

While at the same time, this is just a 'perception' thing.
The user is always downloading all the JS, just not really keeping it in a place they would look at and not having to click a "Download" button.

[–] sip@programming.dev 11 points 1 day ago

cheap interpretation. clearly the commenter meant download and install apps vs just visiting a website.

[–] folekaule@lemmy.world 32 points 1 day ago (1 children)

As a dev: for all their flaws, web apps are easier to distribute, portable, and have a lot of support in frameworks. They also require little infrastructure in most cases.

As a user: web apps run without installing anything, are mostly portable between my browsers of choice, and run in a sandbox to protect my computer.

Probably 90% of my needs can be served by a web app if it is well designed. If I can't have a web app, I will look for a flatpak version and failing that I will look for it in my distro.

[–] occultist8128 5 points 1 day ago
[–] moseschrute@piefed.social 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It’s cloud services, not things being web based. It’s capitalism hijacking technology and preventing you from owning anything. Figma runs in the browser and it’s a fantastic piece of software. But it’s also a cloud service that can be taken away from you at any point. But if you subtract the business model, the fact that you can run something like that in the browser is incredible. Web makes it so incredibly easy to distribute cross platform software. FOSS should embrace it and use it to build actually good software not all this SASS garbage.

[–] tetrislife@leminal.space 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

That is what Delta Chat and Monocles do on different protocols, with WebXDC. https://webxdc.org/

[–] moseschrute@piefed.social 1 points 4 minutes ago

This is sick!

[–] who@feddit.org 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

On a PC, I prefer having local tools; mainly open-source ones. They work without network connectivity, will continue to work in the future, store my data where I have control of it, and don't generally don't spy on me.

I think web apps might make more sense on mobile devices, because I mostly use them for communications and accessing online services, so network connectivity is usually a given. Web apps could also help mitigate the spyware problem brought by mainstream installed apps, because I could block third-party scripts if they were web apps. In practice, though? I de-googled my phone and use open-source apps exclusively, for the best of both worlds.

[–] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 7 points 1 day ago

I agree with you. Better responsivity, better UI, better privacy, keep your data collected in one place which is your computer's hard drive.

[–] MXX53@programming.dev 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

When possible, I prefer all of my tools to be in terminal. I’m not particularly interested in graphical user interfaces, or using my mouse at all. My only real exception is if I am doing digital art, but otherwise I look for either a terminal version of the app I’m looking for, a TUI, or I make a small terminal based app that utilizes the api of the service I am trying to access.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 1 points 1 day ago

This.

It's a choice.

I almost never use web apps; I do only when what I'm doing is fundamentally a web interaction: banking, for instance. Everything's on their servers anyway.

For everything else, I (too) use shell applications. Even if I didn't, there are tons of native GUI applications to choose from, and they are often far better experiences than SPAs or Electron apps: just look at the memory and CPU use, if you want a baseline metric.

Why do people do this? Because they fancy that they're providing a good enough interface that works on every OS. Which is often not the case, and by the time you invest enough effort to get your SPA working well on every possible platform you could have written native apps that look and function better; and most organizations still throw in the towel and add a caveat "works best in X", giving lie to the "web apps work everywhere." So: laziness, or being cheap, and not really carrying about the user experience: those are the reasons people write web apps.

[–] flubba86@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I generally prefer native local applications wherever possible, and for a long time I was against the movement to web based tools. That is until one thing changed. I moved to a different department at work. In this different department, I am issued with a Windows 11 laptop that is extremely locked down. It cannot run any executables aside from those whitelisted. I cannot run anything as administrator. If I need anything new whitelisted, I need to write a full page justification, get an endorsement from my manager, and then it can take over a year to get approved (but most likely will be immediately denied).

Obviously one thing it can run is MS Edge. All of the company tools and systems are webapps on the intranet, accessed via Edge. Now I'm grateful there are so many high quality browser based webapps around.

[–] fuzzzerd@programming.dev 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Progressive web apps are your friend. They can install through edge having their own icon and task bar button, but they are just the same web just in a special tab with the aforementioned behaviour.

[–] flubba86@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Do you have any favourite PWAs you use for work or at home?

[–] maxwells_daemon@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

It's better than everything being exclusive to Windows, but I'd much rather everything just ran natively on Linux...

[–] oantolin@discuss.online 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

There are a couple of functions that web apps almost always have and that native apps tend to lack: (1) selecting and copying text from anywhere in the app to the clipboard; (2) bookmarking individual views within the app. Of course, natives apps in principle could be faster and use more of your hardware —in practice though, they tend to be horribly bloated electron crapps. 😅 So yeah, a decent native app can be better than a web app, but good luck finding one for your purpose.

[–] Tehhund@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is an underappreciated benefit of the Web starting out as a bunch of documents, and then becoming an application platform. Even web apps are very text-first. Copy/past and crtl+F tend to work on most pages. And the fact that most views can be accessed via URL is handier than many people realize.

[–] oantolin@discuss.online 1 points 18 hours ago

How could I forget to mention ctrl+f!

[–] FrostyPolicy@suppo.fi 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

natives apps in principle could be faster and use more of your hardware —in practice though, they tend to be horribly bloated electron crapps.

Electron "apps" are just glorified web pages anyhow. Native applications do offer superior performance as they are AOT compiled code. The ones that are written in rust, c, c++ etc, and if they are gui applications use frameworks like QT or GTK+. They are called native since they are compiled to machine code and are directly executable in the cpu without any kind of runtime like electron browser, java or python.

[–] oantolin@discuss.online 1 points 18 hours ago

And even among runtime environments some are much better than others. I don't really mind dotNet or the JVM that much, but Electron seems particularly wasteful. I don't use a single Electron app.

[–] tatterdemalion@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If you can achieve the desired UX on web, I see few reasons to build a native app. But of course it can be hard to work with web technology sometimes; Javascript and WASM can't do everything and they aren't the best developer experience compared to more moderns languages.

Even for offline usage, there is increasing support for progressive web apps. For example, I don't even need to be connected to the internet to use Exaclidraw after I've loaded the app once and installed it as a PWA.

Then there are times when you simply need access to native platform APIs. SQLite is a a very important technology that isn't easily used from a web app. Most of the powerful APIs you get from an OS like the file system or graphics APIs are extremely watered down for the web.

[–] sip@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago

disk access is missing in web apps. browsers have built in dbs available for devs to use

[–] Azzu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago

HTML/CSS/JS is just a possible frontend technology. It doesn't really matter if your frontend is written in that or written in Qt or whatever. What matters in the end is that the developers are good ones. If the developers suck, the frontend will suck.

There aren't many good developers.

[–] refalo@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I like the attention to sandboxing/security that web apps are given, the ease of updating, and that the UI design is easier/more accessible (many more web devs than anything else) than traditional apps, but I still prefer the speed, size and light (memory) weight of native apps.