June 2019

HTTP Clients #3: The Cost and Benefit of Fat

This entry is part [part not set] of 3 in the series HTTP Clients

So. We’ve talked now about cost & benefit for thin-client, i.e. browser solutions. What are the cost & benefit of fat-client, i.e. app solutions? There is one primary cost for a fat client, as opposed to a thin, and it’s obvious: It doesn’t write-once-run-anywhere. Now a couple of things. We’ve already pointed out that a thin client doesn’t do that, either. But — play fair — thin clients usually run at least "okay" in more places than fat ones do. […]

HTTP Clients #3: The Cost and Benefit of Fat See Full Post

HTTP Clients #2: The Cost of Thin

This entry is part [part not set] of 3 in the series HTTP Clients

Yesterday, we started with thin (i.e. browser) clients versus fat (i.e. app) clients. We considered the alleged benefits of thin, which I believe we routinely overestimate. Today I want to talk about the costs, which I believe we routinely underestimate. I mentioned the other day how much I prefer a fat-client approach to today’s standard and largely unquestioned reliance on browser-based solutions. I want to step into it, even knowing I’m gonna get yelled at. Please do check the admissions

HTTP Clients #2: The Cost of Thin See Full Post

HTTP Clients #1: The Benefit of Thin?

This entry is part [part not set] of 3 in the series HTTP Clients

I mentioned the other day how much I prefer a fat-client approach to today’s standard and largely unquestioned reliance on browser-based solutions. I want to step into it, even knowing I’m gonna get yelled at. Freely made admissions to start: 1) I admit there are situations where a browser is best. 2) I admit that some modern internet-stack environments are better than others. 3) I admit that most of what I’m critiquing is today’s typical practice, not necessarily "what is

HTTP Clients #1: The Benefit of Thin? See Full Post

From Procedural to Human

Yesterday, we talked about Alice’s City On The Hill and her approach to getting there. I offered, instead of the Alice approach, an approach that was Human, Taken, Local, and Iterative. Today, let’s consider this business of Procedural -> Human. Every system for making software is a mixed system, with three kinds of thing in it: the human kind, the artifact kind, and the procedural kind. Humans are, you know, persons. Artifacts are things like the code, the tools, the

From Procedural to Human See Full Post

Alice’s Approach To Change

Change Pro-Tip: It’s common, but mistaken, to believe that some change I want to make will be procedural, given, sweeping, and final. Let’s imagine someone, we’ll call her Alice. Alice is a mid-level manager, a department head let’s say, neither quite at the top nor quite at the bottom. She’s got some power, but not all the power, and she has a very strong desire to change how her organization works. You see, Alice has a vision — inspired perhaps

Alice’s Approach To Change See Full Post

What We Can’t Change

Change Pro-Tip: We can’t (purposefully) change what we don’t sense, what we don’t talk about, or what we assume can’t be changed. I remind myself of this one a lot, because it’s easy to forget in the middle of the circus that passes for professional software development. Changing things means going from A to B in, idunno, operational space. For me to do that well, I need awareness of A. I have to be able to sense what I or

What We Can’t Change See Full Post

Scroll to Top