The fundamental issue I had with web programming, and one of the main reasons why browsers made poor clients for web applications, is that there was no good way to communicate with the web server. In fact, back then, the only way you could get information from the user was for them to click something. Essentially, information could only be passed when a new page was loaded.

As you can imagine, this made it very difficult to have a truly interactive application.

You couldn't have someone type something into a text box and check information on the server while they typed. You'd have to wait for them to press a button.

The solution: Ajax.

Ajax stands for Asynchronous JavaScript and XML. Essentially, it is a way of doing what those older web browsers could not do: communicate with the web server without needing the client to reload the page. This is accomplished through an XMLHTTP ActiveX object in Internet Explorer or an XMLHttpRequest in almost every other browser.

Basically, what this allows a web programmer to do is exchange information between the client and server as if the user had reloaded the page without the user ever actually reloading the page.

Sounds great, right? It is a big step forward, and it is the key reason why Web 2.0 applications are so much more interactive and easy-to-use than previous web applications. But, it is still a Band-Aid. Basically, the client sends the server some information, and it sends a block of text back, leaving the client with the work of interpreting that text.

And then, the client uses something called Dynamic HTML to make the page seem interactive.

This is quite a bit different than how normal client-server applications work. With no restrictions on data passing back and forth, and with the entire architecture built with an eye on letting the client manipulate the screen on the fly, using Ajax techniques to accomplish this on the web is like jumping through hoops to get there.

Web Browsers are the Operating Systems of the Future

Microsoft knew it back in the 90's. That's why they got into that browser war with Netscape, and that's why Microsoft pulled no punches in winning that war. Unfortunately -- at least for Microsoft -- a new browser war exists, and it is being fought on many different platforms. Mozilla Firefox is now being used by roughly 30% of Internet users, while Internet Explorer has seen its market share drop from over 80% to just over 50% in the past five years.

With current web trends like Web 2.0 and Office 2.0 bringing what were historically desktop applications to the web, there becomes more independence in the choice of operating systems, and more importance on standardized browsers. Both of which isn't good news to Microsoft whose Internet Explorer browser tends to do things differently than what most every other browser does. Again, not very good news for Microsoft.

But one great thing about using development tools on an operating system is that you can use standardized objects to create your interface. You also have a lot of control over how you interact with those objects, and can even create your own replacements. With web programming, it is more difficult to achieve this level of control, mainly because web browsers were not initially intended to be sophisticated clients for a large application -- much less be the operating system of the future.

But, more and more, that is what they are becoming. Google Docs already provides a word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation software. Combine this with Google's mail client, and you have your basic office software productivity package. We are slowly, but surely, getting to that point where most of our applications will be available online.

The Mobile Internet and the Browser of the Future