Life In 19x19

Bantari: I don't even understand how you don't think there are UI advantages to native apps (especially on the desktop, with a UI for multitasking, and those advantages start as soon as you have two tabs, well before 150).

Against that there are downsides: more development effort is the most obvious. Discoverability and ease (or lack) of installation are issues for the user.

I don't think it's obvious which is better. But try not to deny the obvious.

hyperpape wrote:Bantari: I don't even understand how you don't think there are UI advantages to native apps (especially on the desktop, with a UI for multitasking).

Huh? Perfect example of people not reading before they post (and yes, I am guilty of that a lot too.) Here, let me quote myself:

Bantari wrote:There are some good reasons to want a stand-alone client. Too many open tabs on your browser is *not* one of those reasons, in my book.

In general - when people have a problem with a specific argument, it does not automatically mean they have the problem with the whole idea.

But to address what you say specifically: I know there are good advantages to native apps. But there are also disadvantages. And since we already have a few servers with stand-alone clients, why not try it the other way now, just for kicks? Assuming KGS HTTP client comes out soon, we will have servers with stand-alone clients (IGS, for example) servers with web clients (Nova) and servers with both (KGS) - and THEN we can really compare. I think overall, it is a good thing to be able to compare.

Although, personally, I don't really care, I can do it either way, or both ways, or whatever.

Why do you even need to download a second browser? Why not just keep a separate browser window open for any website you'd rather have as a native application?

Dusk Eagle wrote:Why do you even need to download a second browser? Why not just keep a separate browser window open for any website you'd rather have as a native application?

Personally, I like the second browser because I can then dedicate it to the server. It remembers the window size, for example, auto-load the client, I can show/hide the elements I want, and so on. Overall, it is closer in 'feel' to having a dedicated client. But what you suggest is also possible, of course. It just takes a few more steps to set it up the way you want it each time.

now that this thread has dissolved into a discussion of webapps verses native apps...

I too routinely run with probably 200-300 tabs across a half-dozen or more separate browser windows, and using multiple browsers as well. On each of several laptops.

My job requires me to be constantly interrupted, jumping from one emergency to the next, while never being able to complete many tasks as I have to wait for others to complete their portions. All my browser windows and tabs, as well as my many terminal windows and tabs represent all the spinning plates on the ends of sticks as I quickly move from one to the next trying to keep them all spinning.

The last thing I want is yet another webapp in another tab (dedicated window or browser or not).

Native applications are much more responsive and can consume far fewer OS resources, but they are more difficult to develop and maintain for cross-platform compatability.

Webapps are the way of the future. They are the new JVMs. Let browser developers develop and manage the cross platform issues, so that application developers only have to worry about their applications.

But I don't have to like it.

xed_over wrote:now that this thread has dissolved into a discussion of webapps verses native apps...

I too routinely run with probably 200-300 tabs across a half-dozen or more separate browser windows, and using multiple browsers as well. On each of several laptops.

My job requires me to be constantly interrupted, jumping from one emergency to the next, while never being able to complete many tasks as I have to wait for others to complete their portions. All my browser windows and tabs, as well as my many terminal windows and tabs represent all the spinning plates on the ends of sticks as I quickly move from one to the next trying to keep them all spinning.

The last thing I want is yet another webapp in another tab (dedicated window or browser or not).

I understand this situation, but what I think is... you need to constantly do so much juggling and spinning and window/tab switching, running all these apps and terminals, getting constantly interrupted, jumping between emergencies, and all that. Sounds like you are very busy, with almost crazy workload and even more insane schedule. I am not quite that crazy at work, never having more than maybe 20 tabs open and maybe 5 terminals with maybe 10 native servers and I usually don't get constantly interrupted like you - still, I really sympathize.

However - is that really the time you play Go as well? Or even kibitz?
When I am in a crunch, and that also happens pretty often, I cannot afford to take time to ask for coffee, let alone kibitz, chat, and playing a game of Go is absolutely out of the question.

I mean - you do what you can do, whatever works.
If you manage to play Go in the midst of all the madness you describe - more power to you, dude, you rock!
I hope you realize that it can be extremely hard for others to understand how you do it. And in any case - I bet this is a very extreme and unusual situation you describe. But I understand that in such situations, native apps work best, and in your case it might be the solution you prefer.

The bottom line is - there is always a price to pay for a native app (there is price for everything), and we need to think if the price is worth it here. And other than the convenience of not having extra tabs, it is not really that clear that native app is automatically more efficient than a web app.

Anyways - good argument, good reasons, but hard to imagine you using a Go client in such times.

yeah, I don't play -- I'm too busy.

Speaking of resources and efficiency...
I just looked at the system usage on my laptop. Here is the observation:

KGS idling:
3-6% CPU, 130-134MB mem, 30-34 threads

Extra tab on chrome running Nova chat panel:
extra ~0.1% CPU, extra 12-20MB mem, extra 1 thread

This is not very scientific, and just a glance, but I certainly don't buy the fact that native app is automatically more efficient than web app. It might be faster and more responsive, but this does not mean more efficient.

haha.. I wouldn't call KGS a native app.

Its a Java application.

Java, like a web browser, consumes a lot of resources, but can run multiple applications.

xed_over wrote:haha.. I wouldn't call KGS a native app.

Its a Java application.

Java, like a web browser, consumes a lot of resources, but can run multiple applications.

Well, true, but unless you really think of developing a true *native* app for each platform - Java might be the best approximation we can do.

Back on topic, I've been using Nova.gs for a while now and I endorse it. I've currently got several correspondence games going there and even over the past two weeks the number of users has noticeably increased. I've even been able to play some live games there during the peek hours.

Bantari wrote:

Dusk Eagle wrote:Why do you even need to download a second browser? Why not just keep a separate browser window open for any website you'd rather have as a native application?

Personally, I like the second browser because I can then dedicate it to the server. It remembers the window size, for example, auto-load the client, I can show/hide the elements I want, and so on. Overall, it is closer in 'feel' to having a dedicated client. But what you suggest is also possible, of course. It just takes a few more steps to set it up the way you want it each time.

You can accomplish the same thing with one browser using Firefox's profiles. It scales much better than having to install a separate web browser for each dedicated task. It's also a nice way to prevent cross-site scripting attacks (for example, I have one profile that I dedicate to online banking only).

So if you wanted a "Nova" browser you would just create a "Nova" profile, set the homepage to Nova.gs, and it would remember all your settings, including window size. It would also be its own dedicated process, so a crash there wouldn't affect your other profiles.

Personally I think the "launch a dedicated browser for your webapps" idea is horrific, but maybe that's what GoPanda2 is doing?



Looks like the "standalone" version is just Chromium launching the webapp? If this were true, wouldn't it have to be mentioned *somewhere*?

(Note: I do not have Chromium installed on my system, just the "GoPanda2 standalone" thingy.)

Bantari, what you quoted was poorly phrased, but I'll accuse you of not reading too, as the rest of the post made it clear one of the advantages I was talking about related to tabs.

Seems like you get the point: you talk about using a dedicated browser. But a native app still has advantages, since it has a dedicated icon.

None of that matters much if you have two tabs open--then it's a mild inconvenice. But if you regularly have a lot of tabs, and already want to keep multiple browsers open (work vs home email, cross-browser testing), it's a pain.

hyperpape wrote:
Seems like you get the point: you talk about using a dedicated browser. But a native app still has advantages, since it has a dedicated icon.

That's the big advantage? Here are some advantages for it (nova - let's not forget about nova) being a web app:

You can play on any computer
You don't need to install anything
You are not dependent on something like Java for your app to function correctly

That's just what pops into my not-very-technical mind. What are the disadvantages that you see in the nova/kaya approach?