Talk:List of rich web application frameworks

Revisiting the Article Title: List of rich internet application frameworks

I want to help with this content regarding platform-independent application platforms. Each of the products/platforms in the current grid allow web developers to produce applications that run and behave as native applications on a variety of desktop and/or mobile platforms.

There is clearly critical mass in this category as the pendulum swings back to native apps from pure browser based apps that were championed as part of the customer adoption trends Web 2.0 and SaaS. Adobe AIR, Sun Java FX and Microsoft Silverlight are huge players driving these solutions for the desktop. Appcelerator Titanium, Nitobi PhoneGap and Rho's RhoMobile lead a pack of up-and-coming products that address mobile alonge with desktop solutions.

In my opinion, this page is inappropriately titled. Internet application frameworks tend to be javascript/ajax libraries. examples include: jQuery, MooTools, scriptalicious, etc. A better title could be "Multi-Platform Application Development"

Discussion, please, so we can confidently move forward.

Freedman1 (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think that your title is better.

Voldik666 (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, the change would make no reference to the internet, a critical component. D Holliday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.206.147 (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Infiniplex2 (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The changed title would be misleading, many other things could also be considered multi-platform. For example, anything in Pure Java, and C++ that only uses cross-platform libraries.

An additional framework: local Web server running PHP

Rich Internet applications can be built easily by running a local Web server, such as Apache, or one of the many tiny and faster alternatives, such as Mongoose, as the operating platform. Then the application itself is written in a server-side language, such as PHP. No sandbox, Ajax or other security workarounds are needed, as such a setup has complete access to the local machine's operating system and file system (as complete as any executable file). The user interface is naturally browser windows and tabs, although the browser can be made to generate standalone windows easily.

The principal drawback of this methodology is the rather severe security precautions enforced by most browsers on local operations the first time such applications are run: the user must click at least one obscure warning button to permit operation, or else the application must run in HTTPS using a trusted certificate, which costs a significant amount of money. Just as with executable files, too, malware and viruses are significant risks for the end user.

Another drawback, if the application is to be used by other computers on the Web, is the need to make the local computer visible on the Web. This may involve registering its domain name, tracking WAN IP changes by the ISP, and making NAT or Firewall entries in the local Internet router or wireless adapter.

While I doubt that there is any market penetration of this methodology, it has always been available and, in my experience, works well in all aspects. I use it frequently for my own standalone software tools, particularly where the Internet is used or where quick implementation is needed. The additional functionality of PHP as compared with JavaScript is an advantage. For me, this methodology has replaced the use of Visual C++ and Visual Basic due to its convenience and development speed. David Spector (user/talk) 12:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to delete this page

The entries on this list are dated, incomplete and follow no structure. Maintaining this page would be a lot of work and it can be misleading for inexperienced people. Wikipedia is a place for people to aqquire general knowledge, this page goes beyond this mission. Therefore I suggest deleting this topic. 2A03:7846:CDE1:101:B5EB:6AC2:C0CB:228E (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Many of the entries in this index are of current importance to website developers, who actually refer to Wikipedia to discover new technologies. I am one of these.

This article is no more difficult to maintain than any other index page, one primarily used to locate a group of related Wikipedia articles.

WP is meant to contain all notable human knowledge, and it currently achieves that goal rather well. Only obscure topics of interest to specialists in a field of knowledge are omitted, so far as I am aware.

A list (like this) of software frameworks currently in use (such as React, Angular, and Vue) is relevant to all Web developers, and to curious Web users.

If the anonymous IP author doesn't like the fact that it includes some very obscure or obsolete technologies, he or she is free to delete the unneeded entries from the table. On the other hand, if any reader notices that a technology is absent, they may add it. That is how WP works. The reasons given for removal are insufficient and/or incorrect, in my opinion. David Spector (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The main issue with maintenance I see is the low quality of this kind of list. When is a framework relevant enough to be added (React based frameworks are missing) and when becomes a framework dead enough (Silverlight has an EOL at 2020) to be removed from this list.

Then I am questioning what the intention of this list is supposed to be? Should it list current frameworks that directly compete with each other? Should this be a collection of frameworks that once where relevant? The intention of this list should be at least included on this page so there is a standard for what can be added or removed and what not. 2A03:7846:CDE1:101:B5EB:6AC2:C0CB:228E (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

You raise good questions. In the first paragraph, you rightly point out that React is missing and that Silverlight, which never caught on, is obsolete. You can level that sort of criticism against any index article, since index entries must be maintained, so that they remain accurate and reliable.

I don't see that as an argument for deletion, because then all index pages could be subject to deletion, perhaps even including Redirection pages and Category Pages. That is overkill.

In WP, we don't delete without thinking. If material is useful (and this article is), we maintain it. That means, don't propose deletion of such pages. Edit them. Remove the obsolete entries, add missing entries.

You previously complained about the need to maintain. But that is one of the duties of a WP editor, and one of the requirements of WP, so that it remains relevant and useful.

In your second paragraph you seem to wonder whether an article should contain history or current practice. There is no one rule for this. It depends on the topic. If the topic is historical, there may be a need for tracing the topic through history. For example, in physics, the Aether theory was proven incorrect. Yet most textbooks on physics mention this theory and how it was disproved, because this teaches how physics works, and changes over time through experimentation.

In the case of the present article, we are not interested at all in history. We are interested in development platforms in current and active use, like the Go language architecture, Word Press, and Hugo (a platform for static pages). If you find that these are missing from the article, don't propose deletion. Add the missing entries. That is what a WP editor does, and it helps WP to remain useful. David Spector (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)