I know, I know, it's supposed to be for backend and that's fine

If you're stuck in a "browser" vision, that's your own fucking problem.

Keeping HTML as a document/form medium only would be ideal, instead it turned into a "it can do anything" language, so that you now have a 2000's era supercomputer in your pocket to send people 140 byte long messages while relying on meme technologies that are outperformed by any 20 year old protocol whether XMPP, NNTP, SMTP, or fucking SMS, all to provide a service so shallow it could run on a fucking Game Boy.

If we need GUIs and client/server models, better use native applications which will be largely better than any browser-based solution. "Apps" were a step in the right direction, but they shit the bed by being bloated, running on equally meme platforms, and generally being yet another HTML5/JS/AJAX frontend. If we need a video service, there are enough fully working streaming protocols to support this, no need for HTML5 to even support video. If we need to make web stores, some archaic protocols like Gopher can do wonders. Anything that's done with a browser can be done way more efficiently with other technologies, except two: documents and forms.

So why do we stick to browsers? Oh, it's simple, browsers are gigantic backdoors used to tap a shitton of information on you and third-parties, and so do apps running on shitty unsecured platforms whose users give all authorizations to and have no idea what runs in it because it's all closed source, and everyone is happy about it. Genuine protocols only provide a service, and cannot be used to gather as much information, other than what you specifically request, and considering how anyone can implement them, you can't even tap data through a client. Every major technological choice today is dictated by Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and their friends not because it's good but because it keeps their business afloat.

Your opinion isn't worth shit, it's not even smart, you're just a tool. Eat shit.

But it isn't 30mb. Majority of space taken by the node_modules are docs, examples, licenses and, from time to time, it's a picture of the Guy Fiery.

>"Apps" were a step in the right direction,

retard alert

what's better UX, having as many a million apps or having one browser that can access a million site?

>Anything that's done with a browser can be done way more efficiently with other technologies,

with more dev time and worse UX. the reason apps are shit is because it's easier to dev once for both sites and apps. you're the retard who's trying to make every fast and perfect and by the time 0.1 comes out your competitor has already sold his shitty app to google for 5 billion and is fucking european models every night and day

A browser is a dependency too, friend.

It's a dependency that everyone has.

At least it's not Django or Ruby on Rails. You dodged a bullet desu senpai.

Attached: 1532839834953.jpg (550x413, 48K)

Like IE6, amirite?

Attached: sadfrog.jpg (500x281, 15K)

>t. brainlet with failed meme
You need to go back.

>what's better UX, having as many a million apps or having one browser that can access a million site?
Well, what's better really? Having a single point of failure that can only support 50 tabs before it crashes, or having a UI that can support thousands of little icons in the form of "Apps" whose authorizations, data, network access and background tasks can be managed independently? I think you're stuck on the comparison of "browser tabs" with "app launchers", but completely overlook the actual technical differences.

Regardless, there's several browsers, so what now faggot?

>with more dev time and worse UX.
Considering the UX on modern websites, with custom listboxes that constantly shit the bed, autoscrolling on textboxes, so many controls that fail at the slightest timeout, and so many different layouts, alignments, borders, and other wild visual design, I don't think the web is a reference. But with proper application frameworks that can render native windows and controls, it takes minutes to get something fully working and the UX is just perfect. I don't think you know shit about UX, nor that you ever used something as basic as Qt or WPF.

>the reason apps are shit is because it's easier to dev once for both sites and apps. you're the retard who's trying to make every fast and perfect and by the time 0.1 comes out your competitor has already sold his shitty app to google for 5 billion and is fucking european models every night and day
You missed the whole point of me talking about "protocols". With proper protocols, even apps become obsolete. Of course we're dreaming here, that will never happen, but this is no reason to believe the current situation is even remotely good.

>Well, what's better really? Having a single point of failure that can only support 50 tabs before it crashes, or having a UI that can support thousands of little icons in the form of "Apps" whose authorizations, data, network access and background tasks can be managed independently?

it's pretty clear by the fact that you are framing the browser as a 'single point of failure' when comparing it against your preferred retardation, that you have no interest in an actual discussion.

you are fucking retarded and your rambling will be ignored by all.

>it's pretty clear by the fact that you are framing the browser as a 'single point of failure' when comparing it against your preferred retardation, that you have no interest in an actual discussion.

I am interested in an actual discussion, but now I don't think you know the subject well enough to talk about it. It's okay, but you have to be more humble about that.

It remains that with properly standardized protocols, you can pick any hardware, any OS, any client, and it still works. The internet you defend is just a tiny portion of protocols, not the best ones, with few implementations, and with huge proprietary blobs on top. It just can't work. I hope you some day see this.

>muh magical perfect protocol that will solve all the problems

there's one working already, it's called javascript. nobody is waiting 20 years for you to come up with your 'perfect' one.

this

Those protocols already exist and are being used for the most part, javascript is embedded in one of them. There's just way more that offer better services. You just need to learn more about client/server architecture, and maybe then you'll get it.

it completely sucks
most packages are buggy as hell
you ned 2000000000000 of them to do anything
upgrading anything will rob you of 2 days of work
the whole thing is fucking dumb, stay away from node

I wipe my ass with 30MB

Attached: 1529853980832.jpg (914x1280, 511K)