Is HTML5 really practical?
ambassador at fourthworld.com
Sat Aug 31 13:19:30 EDT 2019
William Prothero wrote:
> ...I’m wondering whether it might be easier and better to just use
> the engine as a cgi and do everything in css and html.
On the sever, LC makes as good a choice for CGIs as nearly anything else.
On the client there are many options, including browser-native HTML,
LC's emscripten export to JS/HTML, or an LC native app.
Considering how simple and lightweight web forms are, esp. with CSS3's
features for field labels and prompts vs having to script all of that by
hand in LC, for things like that the choice clearly favors simplicity.
Then consider the browser compatibility constraints of LC's current
export, and that mobile isn't considered supported at all, and the
choice becomes even clearer.
LC's HTML export can be useful for certain kinds of highly vertical
solutions, esp. those with little to no direct business competition.
But as others here have noted, it's not designed for making most kinds
of web pages.
It's easy to look at desktop and browser apps as being similar, but the
more you work in both the clearer it becomes that they are radically
Native apps, whether made with LC, XCode, VB, or anything else, are
based on static coordinates, while web elements automatically reflow.
Right off the bat all aspects of handling layout and changes to layout
are different at a very fundamental level.
Think about the implications of that for a while, then consider all the
ways LC is designed to talk to OS APIs, and how browsers are designed to
insulate the user's OS from what happens within web pages, and the stark
differences between the two become soberly clear.
Fourth World Systems
Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
Ambassador at FourthWorld.com http://www.FourthWorld.com
More information about the use-livecode