Just gonna leave us hangin'?
User abuse is rampant on the Web. For example, those APIs you mention are used to fingerprint machines. If you're genuinely concerned with abuse of privacy, you'd do yourself a huge favor by researching the history and current mechanisms for such abuse by websites and, by extension, PWAs.
That's relative to the size of the thing you're installing, no? Wouldn't it then be comparable to software of the same size being installed on the host system?
>no/much less space taken on local storage.
Isn't this, too, relative to the size of the application or the data it is persisting?
Native, cross-platform frameworks exist.
>no app store approvals/revenue share required[...]
Software was distributed long before those walled gardens came into existence. It is as possible as ever to install native software on your machine without having to go through a "store."
>openable via a link[...]
I don't follow. Do you mean a hyperlink from within a browser? I suppose, if one really wanted, it wouldn't take much effort to create such a thing for launching their native applications, but why would that be an advantage: "links" to open applications have existed as icons and various other actions for as long as graphical UIs have been in existence.
>works to the webs' strengths
What does this mean? What advantages do PWAs have, garnered from the Web, that native applications are unable to tap in to?
What’s the likelihood that people are going to put their credit card information into some unknown website compared to using Apple/Google for payments?
Every “advantage” you mentioned is better for the developer not the user. That’s why PWA’s will never take off.
Outside of HN's bubble, people do that all the time. Or at worst they will use PayPal or an equivalent to make payments.
Stripe integrates with Google Pay, so not as janky as you might imagine...
- Crossplatform (in use and development)
- No store/developer fees to pay
- CSS and HTML are capable of things native can only dream of like real reusable responsive UIs across many types of devices.
https://medium.com/missive-app/our-dirty-little-secret-cross...
- Until SwiftUI web front end was way more advanced in terms of reactive programming of UIs
Software was distributed long before those walled gardens popped up. Native applications need no store.
>- Crossplatform (in use and development)
Cross-platform frameworks exist for native applications.
>- No store/developer fees to pay
Same goes for native applications
>- CSS and HTML are capable of things native can only dream of like real reusable responsive UIs across many types of devices.
>https://medium.com/missive-app/our-dirty-little-secret-cross....
This is just an incredibly odd statement. First of all, if such layouts are rendering on your machine then of course native applications are also capable of such a feat. Web browsers capabilities are limited to the resources being made available on the host machine. The same goes for any software running on the machine.
And second: Qt.
>- Until SwiftUI web front end was way more advanced in terms of reactive programming of UIs
I don't understand what you mean here.
On iOS they do. On Android 99% of users won't use a different store.
> Cross-platform frameworks exist for native applications.
Nothing really good though. Best ones are RN and Flutter which do not get you there 100%.
A PWA will consume less memory and will be smaller than a RN or Flutter app.
> Same goes for native applications
Not on iOS.
> if such layouts are rendering on your machine then of course native applications are also capable of such a feat
Theoretically, yes.
> And second: Qt.
Remind me again how much a QT license costs?
> I don't understand what you mean here.
For the last 10 or so years UI development for the web has gone from archaic jQuery imperative DOM manipulation to a new paradigm with data binding and reactive data.
UI data binding in the native world exists but is extremely complicated and tedious. AFAIK the only thing that is similar to what we have now in web dev is SwiftUI.
