Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses Programming The Internet IT Technology

Google Maps Creator Takes Browsers To The Limit 316

Posted by Zonk from the looking-down-from-above dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Addressing a crowd of developers in Sydney today, Google Maps creator Lars Rasmussen encouraged them to embrace bleeding edge technology in browser software. He cited the example of how Google Maps can command Internet Explorer to use VML (Vector Markup Language by Microsoft) to display a blue line between geographical points, but use a PNG graphic format and a linear description for the Firefox browser." From the article: "Firstly, the Web allows rapid deployment and there is no software for users to install. It's also much easier to make sure code runs on multiple browsers compared with multiple operating systems like Mac OS X and Windows. The downside is that browsers don't give programmers full access to a computer's resources such as memory, process power and hard disk space. This is a bottleneck the engineer sees being removed in future, although he thinks the simplicity of the current Web browsing experience needs to be maintained."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Maps Creator Takes Browsers To The Limit More

Google Maps Creator Takes Browsers To The Limit

Comments Filter:

  • Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Thursday July 28, 2005 @09:39AM (#13184966)
    The downside is that browsers don't give programmers full access to a computer's resources such as memory, process power and hard disk space. This is a bottleneck the engineer sees being removed in future, although he thinks the simplicity of the current Web browsing experience needs to be maintained.

    Isn't that what started the downfall of browsers in the first place? The fact that malicious code could be executed client side by attackers through websites? I have a feeling that either the quote isn't written in its entirety or was modified in some way that changed what Rasmussen originally intended. I really doubt that someone of his level wouldn't acknowledge the dangers in doing what that quote proposes.

    "It's quite good," he grudgingly admitted.

    Luckily Google came out with it first so Microsoft again looks like the one copying what others are doing - right? ;-)
    • Well, it's one thing to have "malicious code" executed client-side without any confirmations whatsoever, but it's a whole different thing to have something beneficial executed client-side after (a few) confirmation(s).

      Sure, it's dangerous to have such a level of access from a browser to the computer, but heck, if I *really* want to run something that is possible to be run from a browser (with the appropriate plugins, confirmations, etc), then dammit, let me run it.

      • Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ZeroExistenZ ( 721849 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @10:06AM (#13185211)

        IE already has this "install on demand" where a user has to confirm to allow a certain application to be installed via the browser.

        The problem is though, many clueless users click the thing that makes it go away (cause they were promised something good before they clicked a link) which is the accept option. (certainly on pages which are persisting and force a page-reload until the user confirms) Allowing things to be installed which rather shouldn't be allowed.

        A confirmationbox wont ever prompt you "Would you want to allow us to take over your system and do bad things with your PC?" "yes" - "no"

        (many users would hit the "yes" if they were told they'd get a nice game in place for it, or that MSN will send 0.01$ to a sick child somewhere in a place unknown if they click the "yes" option.)

    • Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) (Score:4, Insightful)

      by szquirrel ( 140575 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @09:57AM (#13185125) Homepage
      Isn't that what started the downfall of browsers in the first place? The fact that malicious code could be executed client side by attackers through websites?

      Define "downfall". Web usage isn't exactly declining, malicious code or no.
      • He said downfall of browsers, not web usage. However, he did use the word a bit generally. Let's just say that code being able to run on a person's hard drive (in other words, locally) has the potential for very Bad Things to happen. Additionally, its increasing prevalence on the internet is what makes it seem like a "downfall."
      • Web usage isn't exactly declining, malicious code or no.

        You're confusing two completely different things here. Web usage != browsers. Please don't fall into the Microsoft marketing ploy that equates "The Web" with "The Browser". They aren't the same.

        Isn't that what started the downfall of browsers in the first place?

        People are becoming increasingly annoyed by the increasing problems associated with client side scripts. They might not be aware of what's causing the problem but they do know one exists.
    • He may be refering to increases in bandwidth and computing power lessening the need for local storage and memory.. think thin client but over a much longer distance. Defainatly possible given enough bandwidth.
    • Virus Technology is going 'legitimate', making sure that consumers get the ads that they desperately need. This is one of the things driving spyware development.

      Don't tell me you have never heard of Advertising Deficiency Syndrome.

      And think of all of those poor advertisers, with starving children at home to feed.

    • As long as its done with the necessary permissions, it should be fine.

    • Re:Surely he was misquoted? On both? ;-) (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Acutally NASA was first to come out with this as a part of their World Wind / Land Sat. Open Source application (http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/ [nasa.gov]). World Wind is much more advanced than googlemaps (don't get me wrong I love googlemaps) as it uses many different datasources. Some features of World Wind include a 3D Engine, Blue Marble,Landsat 7,SRTM, MODIS,Globe and Landmark set. And if you don't like how World Wind works - well then download the source and change it.
    • I was thinking the very same thing when I read this. ActiveX gave IE exactly those abilities, and it gave us a proliferation of malware, spyware and viruses.

      Now I'm not completely against the idea of using some sort of file writing, but I think it's going to have to be of the most restricted degree. No writing to the registry, no writing to any sort of system directory, perhaps restricted simply to XML and plain text. Even then, I would imagine that unless the programmers are exceedingly cautious, hole

    • ActiveX provides just that- it's like running a program on your computer... and the best part is, VB made them, so any grade-A idiot could start executing filesystem functions!

      -M

  • Hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rk_cr ( 901227 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @09:39AM (#13184970)
    I don't know if I like the idea of taking browsers to the limit when it comes to advertising and pop-ups.

  • Important to remember... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lightyear4 ( 852813 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @09:42AM (#13184990)
    Before people start complaining, it is important to remember that google maps is still at this juncture considered beta. Of course it has some bugs; that's inherent in the "beta" distinction. Surely, though, we ought to be suitably impressed by the progress made by google. Until they came along, we had few real innovators.

    • Re:Important to remember... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Thursday July 28, 2005 @09:46AM (#13185020)
      Before people start complaining, it is important to remember that google maps is still at this juncture considered beta.

      Who's complaining? The software works remarkably well and is probably one of the most innovative web applications ever. The fact that it requires no client side program and that it works so incredibly smooth is what makes it amazing...

      Yeah, it's not as great as it could be but they are currently taking the appropriate steps to make sure that it continues to lead the field (i.e. the API).

      • Who's complaining? The software works remarkably well and is probably one of the most innovative web applications ever. The fact that it requires no client side program and that it works so incredibly smooth is what makes it amazing...

        While nobody doubts that Google Maps is good,its hardly innovative,both Multimap [multimap.com] and Street Map [streetmap.co.uk] have implemented long ago what google maps does.The only difference is the others work only in UK (and Europe)and offer no API.

    • GMail is supposedly beta and almost everyone I know is on it. Google "betas" are less buggy and more widely deployed that most companies' final products. It may be their way of limiting liability (just in case) or just to let you know that the features are subject to change without notice. So far, thankfully, the changes have been to our benefit (sattelite images, sattelite/map hybrids, and "infinitely increasing" storage on Gmail).

  • Danger Danger Will Robinson! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ChillyWillie ( 887514 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @09:43AM (#13184998)
    The downside is that browsers don't give programmers full access to a computer's resources such as memory, process power and hard disk space
    Are you kidding me? How is this a bad thing? If this was allowed it would be one of the greatest security holes of all time!
    • The downside is that browsers don't give programmers full access to a computer's resources such as memory, process power and hard disk space

      Are you kidding me? How is this a bad thing?

      Heh. The "downside" he's talking about is to the programmers at the commercial web sites. It's fairly clear that he views things like security as limits on what web-site owners can do with your computer. This is all true, of course, but you are probably under the mistaken impression that you should be the one that decide

  • right..... (Score:5, Funny)

    by TheClam ( 209230 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @09:44AM (#13185003)
    I think the answer to all of IE's problems is to give it MORE access to my PC.

  • Interesting article... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by commo1 ( 709770 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @09:44AM (#13185007)
    But the real issue here is "the simplicity of the current Web browsing experience needs to be maintained". Thin clients, security, cross-platform compatibility and consistency... these are the driving factors for the new Internet. As more and more people move to W3C standards, etc... Microsoft will lose their strangelhold on the market that has been littered with alternate, proprietary technologies that no one wants and no one really needs (ActiveX, .NET, Microsoft BOB [:)] and join the rest of the world. Microsoft is not going anywhere anytime soon, but they can't grow by being different from the other 10% (and climbing) of the market. The browser may be the great equalizer.
    • Microsoft will lose their strangelhold on the market that has been littered with alternate, proprietary technologies that no one wants and no one really needs (ActiveX, .NET, Microsoft BOB [:)] and

      Active X is used in ALL kinds of Windows program every day. Active X = COM and is used by virtually every non-Java Windows program on the planet.

      .Net is rapidly displacing the COM/Active X/Win 32 model.

      To say that nobody wants and nobody needs Active X or .Net is grossly wrong.
      • Sorry to be the troll, but while your comment as a whole is right on, one thing isnt... "ActiveX == COM".

        COM is a standard. Something on paper. An idea of how to use interfaces for binary compatibility. COM IS cross-platform, though Microsoft's implementation is not.

        ActiveX was a cleaver marketing name for OLE with Automation (IDispatch for use in scripting and late binding in general). OLE IS A SPECIFIC set of COM interfaces, with a spalsh of libraries to maintain it all.

        In short: OLE = COM + MS Defin
      • Just to reinforce the point that ActiveX/COM/.NET are important: there is no equivalent technology on Unix platforms that easily enables developers to share components across languages. One reason Windows is so successfull in the workplace is that it is trivial for a casual programmer to glue together many powerful components to create custom business applications.

        The closest Unix comes is TCL and Python. These are the standard glue languages on Unix. But, using Python on Windows with COM really exposes
        • you immediately have programatic access to almost every program installed on the computer

          Utter bullshit.

          You have access to certain COM interfaces (most are undocumented). Most of those are made by Microsoft, and unless you're a complete masochist most of them are not practical to use.

          I've got a book on how to do OLE embedding.. The code to do it covers 3 chapters (IAdviseSink, etc. and they're not particularly well documented either). Why do you think nobody except MS ever bothers (and even they don't bo

  • It's All So Funny (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Comatose51 ( 687974 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @09:45AM (#13185010) Homepage
    So Microsoft initially missed the boat on the Internet. They go on to spend enormous sums of money to destroy Netscape and win the browser war. Once the war is over, what do they do? Nothing. They let the technology stagnate. It ends up being a 3rd company, Google, a non-participant in the browser war who comes along and pushes the envelope. What was the point of Microsoft trying so hard to destroy another company and take over the market? I think Google's play nice strategy is paying more dividends than MS's destroy all competitor strategy.
    • Sadly, Microsoft's goal is Not to create cutting edge or innovative software; it is simply to dominate the market.

      The amount of cash they have amassed has allowed them to bully other companies (as well as consumers).

      I personally think they peaked back in the Win95 era.

      Sadly, much of American business is like this...when you can't out-innovate, then intimidate. When that doesn't work, litigate.

    • They go on to spend enormous sums of money to destroy Netscape and win the browser war. Once the war is over, what do they do? Nothing. They let the technology stagnate...What was the point of Microsoft trying so hard to destroy another company and take over the market?

      To make more money. Have you been living under a rock for the last 20 years? This has been Microsoft's modus operandi from the beginning. They could give a rat's ass about providing the public innovative technology - particularly in a mark
    • What was the point of Microsoft trying so hard to destroy another company and take over the market?

      I think you answered your own question. Market control. Microsoft wants to spread it's viscous sheet of mediocrity across all the markets they can, to ensure that the little fish will never grow up and take them by surprise again. They move in, take control, and then squat until everyone gives up. This means they can direct more resources at trying to catch up to the ones that got away, like Google.
    • What was the point of Microsoft trying so hard to destroy another company and take over the market?

      I dunno...habit?

  • But, untrue! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Vo0k ( 760020 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @09:47AM (#13185026) Journal
    The downside is that browsers don't give programmers full access to a computer's resources such as memory, process power and hard disk space. This is a bottleneck the engineer sees being removed in future, although he thinks the simplicity of the current Web browsing experience needs to be maintained.

    One thing where MSIE excels over Firefox is exactly providing totally unrestricted access to all the system resources of the client's system, for any website developer/programmer, even without need for confirmation from the user. Although Microsoft swears by God that this feature will be removed from IE7...

  • The Benign Giant? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by StreetFire.net ( 850652 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @09:47AM (#13185032) Homepage
    For all the Slash-Love Google gets here, I think it's important to point out that a company whose sole revenue model is advertising is advocating more control of system resources through the browser. I think Google's business model is too often overlooked here.

    • Re:The Benign Giant? (Score:5, Informative)

      by jbrw ( 520 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @09:54AM (#13185097) Homepage
      While the overwhelming majority of their revenue comes from advertising, don't forget that they'll also quite happily sell you a Google Applicance:

      http://www.google.co.uk/enterprise/ [google.co.uk]

      And, I pressume, professional services to go along with that.

      They'll also sell you some other completely random crap:

      http://www.google-store.com/ [google-store.com]
      • ... don't forget that they'll also quite happily sell you a Google Applicance:

        You call that an appliance?

        I want my Google Toaster. Ideally I should be able to burn satellite maps and driving directions into a standard slice of white bread.

    • Re:The Benign Giant? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ciroknight ( 601098 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @09:57AM (#13185126)
      Yeah, we overlook it alright. But that's mainly because they have another clause in their business model; "Do no evil".

      This includes ads that are so unobtrusive I often overlook them unless I'm actually searching for a product.

      So, as their sole revenue model might be advertising, they have yet to have a single ugly popup ad, flashing image screaming "CLICK ME", Flash banner ad, or javascript/css to resize the webbrowser or display those oh so annoying CSS frame-over ads. They're extremely good at advertising, better than most newspapers in my opinion.

      So before you get your Google-hating panties in a wad, take a step back and look at what Google's doing for the general consumer.
      • You think the fact that they're not throwing ads in your face, but rather insidiously placing them throughout legitimate content, proves that they are not evil? I would say just the opposite. At least you know the motives of a company that uses popup and interstitial ads.
        • "insidiously placing them throughout legitimate content"??

          Wow. Last time I looked at a website with a Google AdWords block, there's the big, bold, usually full caps word "ADVERTISEMENT". On top of that, they identify themselves as "Google Ads", and give a couple of text links, which you can simply go right over as if they didn't even exist.

          Just because it's tougher to block Google Ads with your webbrowser's Adblocking feature doesn't mean a damned thing. I know the motives of Google when they put a li
          • you took it way too far (in the /. tradition) when you said I like the interstitials. I don't. But I do trust them. Google is putting on too benign of an appearance for a company that size. The other shoe has to drop sometime.
      • I often overlook them unless I'm actually searching for a product.

        Just imagine how much money they could make if they were to.... make the ad flash!
        • I would think they would see the amount of money they make fall, as webbrowsers and everyone use them would get up in arms about it. Google's unobtrusive ads is a selling point; the ads are not going to tarnish the website they are on and will blend in, making them not seem so much as advertisements but a welcome part of the webpage. Think product placement; If your product is obnoxious and stands out in the light of everything, people point it out and lambaste you for doing it. If you carefully craft scene
    • Besides those already mentioned, they also sell the Earth [google.com].

  • not for everyone (Score:4, Insightful)

    by same_old_story ( 833424 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @09:48AM (#13185040)
    yes, his advice is sound, and his work backs it up.

    but using bleeding edge technology on browsers is much harder for a lonely coder / small team. how much money / time / man hours do you think google had to get around the fact that ie can use VML and firefox png + a linear description?
    • Not to mention the fact that it's still buggy. Take a look at this [google.com]. I've also never had a good experience with printing directions on Google maps. They can probably get away with bugs of the first type but the printing bugs could be a killer.

  • No software to install? (Score:3, Funny)

    by szquirrel ( 140575 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @09:49AM (#13185047) Homepage
    ...and there is no software for users to install.

    Except for, maybe, a web browser?

    It doesn't come from browser elves, you know...

  • To the Limit! (Score:2, Funny)

    by xappax ( 876447 )
    Everybody to the limit, google maps is to the limit...
    I said co-ome on fghwgads!
  • there is no software for users to install

    Um weird, I had to install my operating system, and then I had to install Mozilla. How in the hell is he browsing the web without installing software?

    I want to experience the self browsable web!!!!
    • You're just the do-it-yourself type. :)

      My Mac didn't require me to install my operating system or Safari! Remember, he said there is no software that *users* need to install.
    • Im not sure if you are being serious or not... but I'll bite either way.

      He is speaking from a business/enterprise perspective and is talking about web applications (IE google maps, database search tools, etc.). Roll the clock back 10 years. Client/Server was the major buzzword in organizations. You have a database of customers, and a salesforce that wants the data in it. So you create a gui front end that can access it. The only problem is, how do you deploy this across the company? If you have hundreds of

  • Don't forget MS... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Decameron81 ( 628548 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @09:51AM (#13185072)
    The downside is that browsers don't give programmers full access to a computer's resources such as memory, process power and hard disk space. This is a bottleneck the engineer sees being removed in future, although he thinks the simplicity of the current Web browsing experience needs to be maintained.


    Heh, go tell that to Microsoft with the new "broker" process in Explorer 7. One story below this one.

    Removing this "limit" may be a great thing for web developers, but it's also the only thing that keeps us and our computers from being controlled by them.
  • I've just started learning XUL [mozilla.org] and I'm already wishing that IE supported it. It seems like a fabulous way to build applications. I'm working on a calendar app for my religious community, and although xhtml, css and javascript are mostly good enough, I'm moving it over to XUL because it's better and because I can get access to system resources. I understand the security implications of this, but for my application, there are security implications in the other direction: I don't want community information

  • Everybody... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Sunkist ( 468741 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @09:52AM (#13185078) Homepage
    to the limit! [homestarrunner.com]

  • Ajax: A New Approach to Web Applications (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bad_outlook ( 868902 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @09:53AM (#13185089) Homepage
    I am leaning towards things like Ajax [adaptivepath.com] for my future web devel. Look at the way 'Google Sugest' or even the spellcheck in Gmail works; it's feels like it's a desktop app, there's no pausing to download a plugin or anything. Bringing more of a desktop response to web apps is going to be where it's at in the future, and I think Ajax is the one to watch.

  • Let the serive begin (Score:5, Funny)

    by MyLongNickName ( 822545 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @09:56AM (#13185115) Journal
    And to begin today's Google worship service, please open to page 152 of your hymnal. Let's begin

    "Amaaaaazing Google.... is a search engine
    That helps a geek like meeeeeeee
    Iiiii once was lost, in the interweb
    But now you've show the waaay

    T'was Sergey who made the Google god
    And Larry who helped him ooooout
    How precious was that interface
    So simple yet so compleeeeeeet

    Through many popups, porn and 404's,
    We have already brooooowsed
    T'was Google that brought us safe thus far
    and Google will lead us home.

    Google has promised more to me
    Like gmail, maps and blogs.
    They own all of our web dayayata
    But Google "does no evil"

    When we've been browsing for ten hours
    and don't know how to thinnnnnnk
    we'll log onto Slashdot again
    to hear more about Goooooogle."

    -- Pastor Google

    "Slashdot -- Serving freethinkers since never"

    • Ah... (Score:2)

      by jd ( 1658 )
      But if you sing it backwards, at half-speed, you hear the hidden message "Use Internet Explorer 7!"

  • So... (Score:3, Funny)

    by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @09:58AM (#13185144)
    Support for IE7 is already broken? ;)
  • If you "embrace bleeding edge technology", don't come crying when you get cut by it. Bleeding edge technology tends to mean just that, it is not as reliable as traditional technology.

    When your application crashes 20% of your customer's browsers, you can of course say, "But that's not my problem. They should have upgraded to the latest version of the browser, and ...", however, your customers probably won't get your point, when "the rest of the web", "just works."

  • SVG (Scaleable Vector Graphics)? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Midnight Thunder ( 17205 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @10:04AM (#13185194) Homepage Journal
    It would be nice if they supported SVG. Sure its not native in most browsers yet, but its on its way and in the meantime there is Adobe's SVG plugin [adobe.com]. Opera has support, Firefox should have it by 1.5 and KHTML has it in the works.

    SVG [w3.org] is a W3C approved standard. Adobe has more marketing oriented description [adobe.com] of the technology.

    Other than Microsoft is anyone else using VML [w3.org]?

    • There are other possibilites. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jd ( 1658 )
      VRML never completely died. All it would take is for someone to take the contours on the maps to produce a VRML data set. That would allow you to view the map with topology included.

      Alternatively, modify the VRML plugin to allow slapping bitmaps onto the polygons produced. You now have a pseudo-3D map that gives you a much clearer idea of relative heights and actual appearance.

      Are there any other ways of doing this? Sure! Google could publish the specs for a new tag for drawing lines. >hr< already exi

      • He who provides the content commands the tags.

        Please, please, please - do not advocate shit like this.

        Ten years ago, we were promised that JavaScript, HTML and friends were going to provide an amazing and interactive environment - free of client downloads. Then the browser wars broke out and the pissing contest between whose blink tag implementation was better laid ruin to the entire landscape.

        We are just now recovering from this, and only because the few surviving web developers (as opposed to t

      • You have confused VRML and VML. There are completely different technologies. Look at the way they're spelled. They're different: VML. VRML. See? One uses four letters, and the other uses three. That's different! Now if you take a closer look at the letters, you will notice that one uses the letter R, while the letter R is conspicuously missing from the other. I think it's safe to say that "VML" != "VRML", and even that strcmp("VML", "VRML") != 0. (That's becauxe strcmp returns 0 if the two strings are equal
    • I am a big fan of standards and I strive to make all of the pages I design XHTML 1.1 and CSS compliant. However, my love for standards is superceded only by my hatred for plugins. A user should NEVER need a plugin to view a webpage properly. If you build a site that uses Flash, or Java, or SVG or whatever, there had better be a version that's equally-functional and requires no plugins at all. That's pretty much the oldest rule in the book, and unfortunately a lot of people have forgotten it.

    • Re:SVG (Scaleable Vector Graphics)? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Metaphorically ( 841874 ) * on Thursday July 28, 2005 @11:27AM (#13186095) Homepage
      Don't forget the cell phones [svg.org]. SVG Tiny would be a good way to get Google Maps access to a bunch of mobile browsers. If they can do it in VML, then it should be easy to do in SVG. SVG would be a whole lot simpler than the stuff they do for paths with PNGs in Firefox (imo).

    • It seems that VML [w3.org] never became a W3C recommendation, as it was superseded by SVG [w3.org]. MSIE only supports VML because it's a Microsoft Office format. As far as I know, there are no plans to support SVG natively in MSIE.

      Perhaps it is possible to get MSIE to support a simple subset of SVG by first transforming it into VML. Since both formats are based on XML, perhaps it could even be done on the client side using XSLT. Has anyone tried this? It could be packaged as part of IE7 [edwards.name] (the Dean Edwards hack, not

    • Other than Microsoft is anyone else using VML?


      I like how you just wrote off Microsoft as some minor player. You know, anyone besides Microsoft and their shitty browsers, which make up only a piddly 85% of the market.

      Yeah, that Microsoft ;)

      (Written in Firefox 1.06 / Ubuntu Linux 5.04, just for the record)

  • oh, so is that why.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Lord Bitman ( 95493 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @10:05AM (#13185206)
    is that why the map never prints correctly in firefox? (I can't be the only one who's noticed this)
    • I assume you mean how you have the screen looking one way, but it will print shifted to another way? I was going somewhere last night and had to print two pages to cover what looked like one on my monitor (and because the printing shifts).
  • ...Some of us have limited staff, deadlines, and a budget to deal with. Frankly, the additional R&D time it requires to stay on the bleeding edge can be problematic. Also, my clients are NOT bleeding edge... So if my code only works on bleeding-edge systems, I've got a problem.

    ~D
  • I'd never actually tried google maps in IE before, but it's actually better than google maps in Firefox; The zoom is interactive, and the route is drawn much quicker in IE as well.

    I'd always assumed that it was the same for both browsers.
  • He cited the example of how Google Maps can command Internet Explorer to use VML (Vector Markup Language by Microsoft) to display a blue line between geographical points, but use a PNG graphic format and a linear description for the Firefox browser."

    SO THATS WHY the blue line won't print in Exploder, but will when I use firefox. Thanks slashdot! :D
  • The downside is that browsers don't give programmers full access to a computer's resources such as memory, process power and hard disk space. This is a bottleneck the engineer sees being removed in future,

    He doesn't get it. The whole point of HTML is to keep the web site at arm's length from the user's machine. The browser is an interface, not a platform.

    Microsoft, Netscape, and Sun have all tried (incompatibly) to make the browser a "platform". We've suffered through Active-X controls, the Netscape

  • Retort (Score:2)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 )

    Quoting from TFA:

    "Go beyond browsers' lowest common denominator," he advised developers.

    Developers:"If you go beyond the least common denominator you're guaranteed to multiply your costs."

    Lars is probably so smart he can increase his costs by log(N_browsers) instead of N_browsers^p, but his company has access to google dollars.

    Were I funding development, I'd push to increase the least common denominator.

    Say, by advocating that large corporate customers and governments

    • insist upon standards in their p

  • The real problem with web-app development (Score:5, Informative)

    by kronocide ( 209440 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @01:02PM (#13187195) Homepage Journal
    Having developed all kinds of web apps since '96 for the exact reasons given in the article (simply the most convenient platform for distributed applications) I have learned that "that browsers don't give programmers full access to a computer's resources such as memory, process power and hard disk space" is not the most limiting aspect of web app development.

    The most limiting aspect comes from one of the web's strengths, that it's based on a very simple request-response protocol. This means that you can't update the browser from the server. Instead of the server sending an event to the browser when something needs to change in the user interface, the UI needs to regularly ask the server if anything has changed. The consequence is the irritating, frequent page updates in web chats and similar applications, and "unnecessary" consumption of bandwidth.

    This is why you need to use Java or Flash for more advanced applications. Then you can do pretty much anything, but the client also gets a whole lot thicker, and you can't use the web UI API shared by all browsers (form widgets, basically), which is one of the reasons web apps are so convenient to make.

    I'm not saying this is something that should be "fixed," the request-response protocol is generally a good thing (and very unlikely to change anyway). I'm just saying that this is the big difference between designing web apps and desktop applications.
  • good thing he's got a decent job with google, cause the guy sure can't time trial [velonews.com] worth a darn. Two crashes and four bike changes? ouch.

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close