RE: GUI development language

From: albartell

1) Speed. When I am working in web 2.0 browser apps they are still slower
than their thick/rich counterparts.

And both are slower than 5250. Realistically, a well-designed web
application is "fast enough". This is a very subjective issue, and one I
don't want to spend a lot of time on. I submit that local UIs that don't
have to go to the host are faster.

I also have to say, "Duh." <grin>

2) Right clicking. Can you do it in the browser? Yes. Have I seen it
implemented well? Rarely. Usually it is sluggish.

We use it all the time. We use right-click to prompt (that is, we map it to
the F4 key). Works like a charm.

3) Drag'n'drop. Can it be done? For *some* things. Can I drag and drop
onto my desktop? No (ignorance might play here as I haven't been able to
drag a file). Can I drag something from the desktop into a browser app
without a rich client plugin? I could wrap this into a general limitation
of access to desktop "services".

This is absolutely the nut, and I'm kicking myself for having forgotten it.
Half of that is security: you really don't want a served application to be
able to access your local disk. But for those applications that need
desktop integration, thick client applications win hands down.

4) Modal dialogs. I have seen it done in some conceptual Javascript
samples using Tapestry add-ons (Apache project), but never in a
"real"/"production" environment.

Again, this is something we've done quite a bit.

5) Back button in browser.

What is the issue? There is no "back button" in a thick client application,
so it seems to me the only problem is disabling it. I do that in PSC/400
quite effectively.

Is EGL using JSF under the covers I am guessing?

Yes.

6) Writing to lowest common denominator for browser wars - there are still
things that I can only run in IE, for example , Sharepoint and Outlook Web
Access are considerable stripped down when I use them in FF. Probably by
design, but others have followed suit and it takes extra effort to plan
for the top few browsers.

But instead you're going to write a fat client and have to worry about the
OS wars! Remember, since there is no standard rich client platform, you
have to write your own, and if you have to write your own, then you have to
now support Windows (all flavors), Linux (at least GTK and Motif), a whole
slew of *nixes, and of course OS/X.

7) Can't completely control tabbing. I don't want to tab through the
browser address bar and then like.

Piece of cake with a chromeless browser.


So, of your seven issues, I think 2, 4, 5 and 7 are more of a matter of
education on your part, and 6 is actually a point in favor of browsers, in
my opinion. Point one is pretty subjective (is the browser "too slow" or
just "a little slower"?). Point three is really the big kicker and in fact
when I give seminars on web architectures, I always bring that issue up: if
you need to integrate with the desktop, thick client is best. And if you
need to integrate with Windows applications, IE is best. So if that issue
is really the highest priority, you probably have to give up on Firefox :).

Joe