Guest Opinion

The Web Is Dead

(Long Live the Web!)

M any people have predicted the end of the Web, or the death of the browser. Obviously neither prediction has come true. Even in the worst of the "dot-bomb" years, Web development remained a significant concern at companies of almost any size.

But I do think the Web, as we know it, is finally coming to an end. And this does not make me unhappy.

In recent memory you would be hard-pressed to find any technology that remained mainstream and viable for more than about 10 years. Think about CORBA, COM, Win32, and even Java. Each had a good run of no more than a decade before the "next big thing" came along, relegating once-viable technologies to the status of legacy technologies.


Depending on when you start counting, the Web as we know it is around 10 years old, and so it's time for it to gracefully pass on and officially become a legacy technology. It's about time, too. The Web has driven some incredible and important changes in the way we think about software development. At the same time, the Web is little more than a stack of hacks that has grown ever deeper and nastier as time has passed.

It's important to remember that HTTP and HTML were designed as document transport and viewing technologies. Everything else, including the ability of users to enter data, managing state, style sheets, and client-side script and server callbacks (AJAX) are hacks layered on top of something that was never designed to do what it is used for today. No sane person would design the Web to work the way it does, and the result is barely contained chaos.

And yet this barely contained chaos is arguably the dominant programming model in the world today. For the moment.

I submit that AJAX is the last gasp of a dying technology. It is the hack that adds the straw that will break the camel's back. Yes, AJAX is cool, and it allows some adequately rich interaction while retaining reasonably broad reach, but it also pushes the browser as far as we're likely to go. Beyond this point, either the browser transforms into a full-blown programming platform or we find another answer.

And the industry has already arrived at another answer represented by Silverlight and Atlas. If the browser can't become a full-blown programming platform, we'll just use it as a launch point to load something else that is a programming platform.

Silverlight 1.1 is in an alpha state right now, but I believe it represents the future of the Web. The Web isn't dead, but it is about to undergo the biggest transformation in the past decade. Given a choice between writing complex JavaScript that must accommodate differences in browsers to interact with an antiquated browser API, or writing C# or VB .NET code that is consistent regardless of browser or platform, and which uses a modern API, I think most developers would choose the latter, hands down. And that's Silverlight (if Microsoft delivers on the promise of the alpha release).

Instead of using the aging and overly complex HTML, you can create the visual layout using the modern and well-designed XAML language. Instead of using interpreted and hard to debug script, you can use compiled .NET languages. Instead of testing across multiple platforms and browsers, you can spend your time building more features and testing them more completely.

Perhaps most importantly, you can achieve levels of rich user interaction that are prohibitively expensive or even impossible using DHTML and AJAX. Given access to XAML and .NET on the client, you can create user experiences that Web developers have only dreamed of providing. All that, with the same zero complexity deployment characteristics that have made the Web so popular.

Yes, the Web as we know it is drawing to a close. But the future of the Web has never been brighter!

The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of VSM or 1105 Media.

About the Author

Rockford Lhotka is the author of several books, including the Expert VB and C# 2005 Business Objects books and related CSLA .NET framework. He is a Microsoft Regional Director, MVP and INETA speaker. Rockford is the Principal Technology Evangelist for Magenic, a Microsoft Gold Certified Partner.

Reader Comments:

Fri, Nov 30, 2007 Anonymous Anonymous

So, the Web (including billions or trillions of static documents targeting the open, multi-vendor W3C standards) is being replaced by proprietary Microsoft technologies? Hmm... I was wondering where all that kool-aid went.

Although I could make a stronger case that the Web is increasingly *less* likely to be replaced by proprietary software than ever before, and that what Google, Sun, IBM, Mozilla, Adobe, Apache, and Apple are cooking up will be far simpler, more elegant, and more mature than Microsoft's offerings, I don't live in a fantasy world requiring me to believe one side will succeed and all the others will fail.

I also don't have delusions of being John C. "Vista is dead" Dvorak dot org slash blog.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, rumors of the deaths of Vista, the Web, scripting, and Java have been greatly exaggerated.

Anything Microsoft puts it weight behind (from Vista to Silverlight) will enjoy, at the very least, a moderate amount of success due to the market forces that help it maintain its position; but like the Web itself, whatever replaces the current incarnation of the Web will certainly not devolve into the single-vendor, monopolistic model that the Web freed us from. I doubt Microsoft really wants or expects Silverlight to be "Web 3.0" rather than just a technology competitive with similar offerings from Adobe.

Tim O'Reilly already told us Web 1.0 is dead and replaced by Web 2.0 a couple of years ago. If our 100% Microsoft future is overdue because technologies get replaced every decade like clockwork, then by my calculations, Microsoft's turn to remake Web 3.0 in its own image has to wait at least another 8 years until Web 2.0's turn is over.

Of course, the whole idea that technology has to be completely replaced every 10 years is silly. If anything needs to be replaced, it's the e-mail infrastructure, not the Web. The Web is periodically refreshed and retooled, as necessary, by standards bodies like the W3C and ECMA reacting to the efforts of many vendors, not just one, so that major shifts like HTML to XML, DOM0 to DOM1, and ES3 to ES4+E4X can happen smoothly.

Can anyone really write a balanced article on this topic without mentioning Tamarin, the emerging script engine which Mozilla, Adobe, Apple, and others have unified around, not only for scripting browsers, but also all Adobe and Apple Web infrastructure, like AIR, Flex, Flash, WebObjects, WebKit, and more? Why no mention of the ES4 and E4X standards? How about Java 6, which has benefitted from a year of GPL development, including synthesis with Mozilla Rhino and Apache Derby (formerly IBM Cloudscape) poised to bring Google-Gears-ish functionality to all major browsers? How the ES4 reference implementation and GCJ are quickly overcoming the advantages .NET+ActiveX once had over Java+ES3? XAML is nice, but is it really all that much better than XUL and its ilk? How can you claim Silverlight is the first browser-hosted programming platform when Java applets would have done the same thing a decade ago if Microsoft hadn't used its monopoly to stunt Java's growth?

Yes, the Web as we know it is going to continue to change rapidly-- it always has. We really are on the cusp of some significant sea changes that might feel almost as drastic as replacing browsers with Silverlight front-ends; but Microsoft is just one of many vendors, one which is trying desperately to remain relevant by mirroring in proprietary code slight variations on what it sees happening in the open source community or the rest of the industry. In the end, consumers benefit from such competition, but only when the marketplace is not dominated by a single company with a history of letting its products stagnate in markets that are no longer competitive.

Gird your loins, netizens! If Lhotka is expressing an honest opinion, Browser War 3.0 is upon us!!

Mon, Nov 26, 2007 Anonymous Anonymous

Wow.. that's weak. Its not just that I disagree with you, its just a very skin-deep analysis of an interesting and rich subject.

Add Your Comments Now:

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above