Comments on: Web 2.0’s five-year development cycle http://www.wordyard.com/2007/08/27/five-years-2/ Technology, politics, culture Fri, 05 Dec 2008 12:05:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Pain and Glory from the Trenches of the IT World http://www.wordyard.com/2007/08/27/five-years-2/#comment-966 Pain and Glory from the Trenches of the IT World Wed, 19 Sep 2007 02:02:26 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1375#comment-966 <strong>Web apps: taking five years to get to where desktop apps were a decade earlier?...</strong> Scott Rosenberg recently wrote about how it appears to take an AJAX-based Web application about five years to mature. The examples he gives include the new Yahoo! Mail interface, as well as the new Bloglines design. But I don’t think he’s ... Web apps: taking five years to get to where desktop apps were a decade earlier?…

Scott Rosenberg recently wrote about how it appears to take an AJAX-based Web application about five years to mature. The examples he gives include the new Yahoo! Mail interface, as well as the new Bloglines design. But I don’t think he’s …

]]> By: Web 2.0 mindmap, v035 - The Yourdon Report - Blogging the impact of computer-related technology trends, and whatever else catches my interest. http://www.wordyard.com/2007/08/27/five-years-2/#comment-965 Web 2.0 mindmap, v035 - The Yourdon Report - Blogging the impact of computer-related technology trends, and whatever else catches my interest. Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:34:17 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1375#comment-965 [...] titled “Agile.” To that sub-branch, I’ve added a new sub-sub-branch with a link to a blog posting by Scott Rosenberg (author of Dreaming in Code, which I discussed in several blog postings earlier [...] [...] titled “Agile.” To that sub-branch, I’ve added a new sub-sub-branch with a link to a blog posting by Scott Rosenberg (author of Dreaming in Code, which I discussed in several blog postings earlier [...]

]]> By: i must be an acrobat : a blog by joshua hoover » Web 2.0 is Agile...Sort of http://www.wordyard.com/2007/08/27/five-years-2/#comment-973 i must be an acrobat : a blog by joshua hoover » Web 2.0 is Agile...Sort of Mon, 03 Sep 2007 02:14:40 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1375#comment-973 [...] Rosenberg makes an interesting observation about Web 2.0 software. Scott wrote the book Dreaming in Code, which gives a look into the making [...] [...] Rosenberg makes an interesting observation about Web 2.0 software. Scott wrote the book Dreaming in Code, which gives a look into the making [...]

]]> By: Lee http://www.wordyard.com/2007/08/27/five-years-2/#comment-972 Lee Wed, 29 Aug 2007 06:21:06 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1375#comment-972 But my point is that its not a 5 year 'upgrade cycle'. Things are getting better over time. Joel Spolsky says that 'good software takes 10 years'. I don't think the web has changed that. Its just a question of what the user experience is - continuous minor improvements vs occasional major upgrades. Its a process, not a 'cycle'. But my point is that its not a 5 year ‘upgrade cycle’. Things are getting better over time. Joel Spolsky says that ‘good software takes 10 years’. I don’t think the web has changed that. Its just a question of what the user experience is - continuous minor improvements vs occasional major upgrades. Its a process, not a ‘cycle’.

]]> By: Scott Rosenberg http://www.wordyard.com/2007/08/27/five-years-2/#comment-971 Scott Rosenberg Wed, 29 Aug 2007 04:43:43 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1375#comment-971 Lee, I think what you're saying is consonant with my argument here. "...Bloglines spent five years making their software more robust, scalable, reliable" -- that's my point. That's the stuff that eats up enormous amounts of any development process. Simply being a browser-based app doesn't exempt you; if anything, it might make that stuff more time-consuming. For what it's worth, I switched to Google about six months ago, but now I'm weighing giving Bloglines another try... Lee, I think what you’re saying is consonant with my argument here. “…Bloglines spent five years making their software more robust, scalable, reliable” — that’s my point. That’s the stuff that eats up enormous amounts of any development process. Simply being a browser-based app doesn’t exempt you; if anything, it might make that stuff more time-consuming. For what it’s worth, I switched to Google about six months ago, but now I’m weighing giving Bloglines another try…

]]> By: Lee http://www.wordyard.com/2007/08/27/five-years-2/#comment-969 Lee Wed, 29 Aug 2007 02:56:27 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1375#comment-969 I think you're missing the boat here. The '2.0 version takes 5 years' is a complete misunderstanding of the situation. Remember, UI is a small fraction of the total application (20% for an app like bloglines?). In the world of packaged apps the pressure was on to 'freshen' the UI with every release so that the 'improvements' in the application were visible to the end users. So bloglines spent five years making their software more robust, more scalable, more reliable, and they added a few new features (you can subscribe to a feed for package tracking for example, that wasn't possible five years ago). Then about a year ago they decided (probably right after google reader shipped) to refresh the UI. So now, five years after the last major UI change, they update their look and feel, and the marketing folk say 'hey, lets call it 2.0'. Here's my question for you - is it any better? Sure, it looks nicer, but i've had the choice of going to Google reader for at least the last year, but i kept coming back to bloglines. Why? To be honest, i'm not sure, but its not because the UI was prettier :). I think you’re missing the boat here. The ‘2.0 version takes 5 years’ is a complete misunderstanding of the situation. Remember, UI is a small fraction of the total application (20% for an app like bloglines?). In the world of packaged apps the pressure was on to ‘freshen’ the UI with every release so that the ‘improvements’ in the application were visible to the end users. So bloglines spent five years making their software more robust, more scalable, more reliable, and they added a few new features (you can subscribe to a feed for package tracking for example, that wasn’t possible five years ago). Then about a year ago they decided (probably right after google reader shipped) to refresh the UI. So now, five years after the last major UI change, they update their look and feel, and the marketing folk say ‘hey, lets call it 2.0′. Here’s my question for you - is it any better? Sure, it looks nicer, but i’ve had the choice of going to Google reader for at least the last year, but i kept coming back to bloglines. Why? To be honest, i’m not sure, but its not because the UI was prettier :).

]]> By: Zach Coelius http://www.wordyard.com/2007/08/27/five-years-2/#comment-974 Zach Coelius Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:35:18 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1375#comment-974 Scott, I finished your book a little while back and its right on. Software is hard, web or client, it is very, very hard to do well. I think the reason for apps succeeding is not that they are supposedly easier to build. Software is still hard. What is so different about web apps is that the web atomizes software. A web app only has to do one feature really well. Users are able to easily combine the best web apps for their needs since the web allows frictionless access to endless apps large and small. Desktop apps on the other hand need to be feature complete as there are no other options to solve a need not addressed since a desktop will usually only have one product per function. What that means is that a successful desktop product might need to have ten or twenty times the features of a web app. That increase in complexity is a big deal. The more complex software is, the more likely it is to fail. The web is like Lego’s; each app is a brick that can be used with other apps. Desktop apps are like a car; lots of moving pieces which all must function perfectly together. Maybe the dream of object-oriented programming is truly happening on the web? Now if we can only figure out a way for the data to flow between web apps… Scott,
I finished your book a little while back and its right on. Software is hard, web or client, it is very, very hard to do well.

I think the reason for apps succeeding is not that they are supposedly easier to build. Software is still hard. What is so different about web apps is that the web atomizes software. A web app only has to do one feature really well. Users are able to easily combine the best web apps for their needs since the web allows frictionless access to endless apps large and small. Desktop apps on the other hand need to be feature complete as there are no other options to solve a need not addressed since a desktop will usually only have one product per function. What that means is that a successful desktop product might need to have ten or twenty times the features of a web app. That increase in complexity is a big deal. The more complex software is, the more likely it is to fail.

The web is like Lego’s; each app is a brick that can be used with other apps. Desktop apps are like a car; lots of moving pieces which all must function perfectly together.

Maybe the dream of object-oriented programming is truly happening on the web? Now if we can only figure out a way for the data to flow between web apps…

]]> By: » Web Apps http://www.wordyard.com/2007/08/27/five-years-2/#comment-975 » Web Apps Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:27:12 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1375#comment-975 [...] 28, 2007Web Apps Scott Rosenberg, the author of Dreaming in Code, has a post on his blog where he talks about web2 apps and software [...] [...] 28, 2007Web Apps Scott Rosenberg, the author of Dreaming in Code, has a post on his blog where he talks about web2 apps and software [...]

]]> By: Scott Rosenberg http://www.wordyard.com/2007/08/27/five-years-2/#comment-967 Scott Rosenberg Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:50:30 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1375#comment-967 Brian -- I'm not arguing that it's a failure at all; just observing that the cycle seems to be a lot longer than the optimistic conventional wisdom. Even if you slice off some years for "adding features without a 2.0 product plan"... Morgan: better tools will of course help, as always! For what it's worth, the "sane observer" comment was about the <i>importance</i> of the browser-based approach; I think it's perfectly sane to argue that the approach doesn't "solve all our problems" -- this is in fact my position, and of course I'm fully and entirely sane :-) Brian — I’m not arguing that it’s a failure at all; just observing that the cycle seems to be a lot longer than the optimistic conventional wisdom. Even if you slice off some years for “adding features without a 2.0 product plan”…

Morgan: better tools will of course help, as always! For what it’s worth, the “sane observer” comment was about the importance of the browser-based approach; I think it’s perfectly sane to argue that the approach doesn’t “solve all our problems” — this is in fact my position, and of course I’m fully and entirely sane :-)

]]> By: Morgan http://www.wordyard.com/2007/08/27/five-years-2/#comment-970 Morgan Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:13:00 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1375#comment-970 I believe myself to be sane (but then don't most insane people), yet I'm willing to at least partially deny the notion that "Web apps solve all our problems." I'm currently managing a project that will use a browser-based front end, and it's kind of a nightmare. We normally use a fat client approach to our enterprise software, but for this application, we decided to try an Ajax approach because we needed the flexibility it will give us. We're within a couple of months of being done, and I don't think it has taken any longer than a fat client approach would have taken, though it hasn't been any faster either. But my biggest concern at this point is the maintainability of the application once deployed. Its logic is dispersed among Java files, JSP files, JavaScript, and XML files, and changes in any of those places can break logic in others, sometimes in very subtle ways, and there's no IDE or other tool that will keep track of that the way that can now be easily done if all of your code is, say, Java. There is as yet no mature development environment that enables robust, reliable development and enhancement across even medium-sized development teams. Yes, the Web 2.0 approach can offer the advantages you cite in your first paragraph, but an enterprise-ready development infrastructure hasn't evolved around it yet. The good news is that this is a problem that's affecting a lot of organizations and developers, so I don't think that evolution will take long. I believe myself to be sane (but then don’t most insane people), yet I’m willing to at least partially deny the notion that “Web apps solve all our problems.” I’m currently managing a project that will use a browser-based front end, and it’s kind of a nightmare. We normally use a fat client approach to our enterprise software, but for this application, we decided to try an Ajax approach because we needed the flexibility it will give us.

We’re within a couple of months of being done, and I don’t think it has taken any longer than a fat client approach would have taken, though it hasn’t been any faster either. But my biggest concern at this point is the maintainability of the application once deployed. Its logic is dispersed among Java files, JSP files, JavaScript, and XML files, and changes in any of those places can break logic in others, sometimes in very subtle ways, and there’s no IDE or other tool that will keep track of that the way that can now be easily done if all of your code is, say, Java. There is as yet no mature development environment that enables robust, reliable development and enhancement across even medium-sized development teams.

Yes, the Web 2.0 approach can offer the advantages you cite in your first paragraph, but an enterprise-ready development infrastructure hasn’t evolved around it yet. The good news is that this is a problem that’s affecting a lot of organizations and developers, so I don’t think that evolution will take long.

]]>