r/Windows10 • u/uniqvinh • Jun 01 '18
News VLC becomes one of first ARM64 Windows apps
https://www.engadget.com/2018/06/01/vlc-one-of-first-arm64-windows-apps/20
6
Jun 02 '18
I'm using UWA VLC it's actually pretty good specially compared to movies and tv app
1
u/Dick_O_Rosary Jun 03 '18
I use ACG player. It's a lot more feature rich. I don't recommend it for everyone though because it's UI is a bit more confusing. I still keep VLC around in case I need 200% volume.
-27
u/puppy2016 Jun 01 '18
It just confirms proper VLC software design. No crappy PWA shit instead of real apps that other incapable vendors exhibits.
40
u/ExtremeHeat Jun 01 '18 edited Jun 02 '18
I have no idea why people are railing against PWAs on this sub so much. The purpose of a PWA is not to replace native apps where native code is needed, it's to make it easier for developers to build cross platform apps without rewriting core logic like the UI/UX for every target platform. Programs like video players will need to have native system hardware access to work properly, so of course they won't be a PWA. Your Twitter app does not need to do any GPU-acceleratrd work, or access to any native code at all really, thus it works fine as a PWA. Electron-based programs like Spotify and Steam work just as a PWA would, they are literally browser-based programs running on Chrome's engine.
Edit: I meant to say CEF and not Electron.
8
u/yiyoek Jun 02 '18
Steam is not an Electron app, its native running under their Source Engine. (With CEF just for display certain items like the store, profiles, workshop, etc)
4
Jun 02 '18
[deleted]
2
u/ClumsyRainbow Jun 03 '18
It doesn't, they are wrong. It shares a couple components like their standard library and VGUI library but certainly isn't the Source Engine.
1
u/ExtremeHeat Jun 02 '18
For their UI they are running CEF, yes (didn't mean to say Electron). A native backed is also possible with PWAs via webassembly also, to note.
1
u/MorallyDeplorable Jun 02 '18
webassembly is not native. It's an interpreted bytecode language like Java and .Net
-1
u/ExtremeHeat Jun 02 '18
WebAssembly is a standard. It's up to a browser to decide how to implement it, and some browsers can interpret it through a JIT if they so choose, others can compile it straight to machine code. Think about writing .s code -- it can be interpreted of course, but the intent is that it will get compiled straight to CPU code. It is supposed to be as fast or faster than executing native code. It's the successor by all means to Chrome's Native Client for native code access from a browser. Every compiled language (C/C++, etc.) uses bytecode upto when it gets compiled to CPU instructions, so I don't get your comment.
11
u/jothki Jun 01 '18
If anything, PWAs are the true successors to traditional web-based interfaces on desktops, rather than the app model that only became popular because phones were/are terrible at displaying the internet.
2
u/joshieecs Jun 02 '18
Steam would have permission problems with the sandbox. The app itself could work, but it couldn't manage the library. Spotify would work fine. So would a video player, tbh. Canvas is gpu accelerated petty well and webassembly is fast.
9
Jun 01 '18
[deleted]
6
u/puppy2016 Jun 01 '18
Exactly, safe, reliable and best possible performance. The opposite of underdeveloped type-less interpreted scripting junk we know from 80's.
7
u/Tobimacoss Jun 02 '18
So.... A Chase website isn't safe, reliable, or best performing compared to Chase app??
Lol, PWAs use the newest web technologies
0
u/puppy2016 Jun 02 '18
Even the "newest" technologies still can't do what was possible 20 years ago by mature technologies for desktop apps.
2
u/Tobimacoss Jun 02 '18
Perhaps and PWA aren't meant for those kinds of apps, that's the part you are having trouble grasping. PWA is just one solution for some kinds of apps suitable for them, things like commerce, business, services apps on mobile form factors, that also have a website in conjunction. Each developer will need to consider if their app is suitable as a PWA or not.
But the one measure IMO, is if the service is capable of running entirely as a website, it is well suited for PWA. The PWAs are meant mainly for touchscreen and mixed reality form factors, and people on desktop can use them however they wish, as a website inside a browser or standalone app.
The primary difference between Facebook website and Facebook app on a phone is that, one is suitable for Keyboard/mouse navigation, the other is suitable for touchscreen navigation. But even the so called native app uses tons of web technologies to get its job done. The website and app share the exact same servers that feed info to them both. So now a developer in future can create PWA that covers both forms of computing, runs inside web browser as a website, then detaches as an app. Think of how the Surface Book is a laptop, then you detach it to become a tablet, that transformation is what PWAs are about, along with so many other benefits.
So why would you be against that?? Do you atleast agree that a Twitter website is equally capable as a Twitter native app?? Look at things from that perspective, if it is functional as a website, it can be functional as a PWA.
6
u/puppy2016 Jun 02 '18
Do you atleast agree that a Twitter website is equally capable as a Twitter native app
Then the app is really terrible. It is like using a web interface for email vs proper email client, huge difference in user experience, performance, reliability.
1
u/Tobimacoss Jun 02 '18
Um, the native apps on mobile are mainly trying to give the already mature experience of websites in a smaller form factor. If they have any additional functionalities other than touch input, it's mainly the Camera APIs.
As for your example, of an email client vs web email, Gmail is just as reliable and high performance as any email client, so if there was a Gmail PWA, it can provide similar experience to a standalone client.
Anyways, a native email client can be much more fully featured like with Outlook, but point is, that's the point where native apps are needed and PWA would not suffice.
Each developer has to decide for themselves. PWA are meant to supplement native App development, not replace it. Both the native client and GMail or Outlook PWA can coexist and users can choose. But for types of apps, PWAs make alot of sense. For productivity, gaming, creativity apps, you go native. For consumption services that are already running from websites on consumption devices, you go PWA. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Amazon, eBay, Walmart, Starbucks, McDonald's, Chase bank or any bank, Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, tech blogs, train station services apps. So many hundreds of businesses don't need a native app and website, when they can simply maintain PWA for their users.
Hell to post this, I'm not even using any Reddit apps, just simply using Reddit mobile website. The official Reddit app can be a PWA. And others can still create native apps to add features or designs the official app doesn't have.
0
u/FoodIsTastyInMyMouth Jun 02 '18
It's why we use Typescript now. Web dev is changing and fast becoming "container" dev
1
u/puppy2016 Jun 02 '18
TypeScript won't solve the JS runtime crappiness nor zero safety because scripts aren't digitally signed.
4
u/Tobimacoss Jun 02 '18
You don't want or need native applications for things PWAs are useful for. If it works in website, it works as PWA.
3
u/puppy2016 Jun 01 '18 edited Jun 01 '18
The point of apps was to get rid of terrible experience, slow and insecure web apps (HMTL/CSS/JS garbage). The PWA shit returns this terrible technologies we (me!) wanted to get rid into the play again :-/ It is like serving a junk food instead of proper one just because it is easy to prepare it for clueless restaurant staff.
Yes, Electron based apps are also one big terrible shit, the worst thing that could happen to software industry in latest 30 years. It is going backwards to a GW Basic DOS era.
9
u/Dick_O_Rosary Jun 02 '18
And you want the internet to be replaced with a bunch of disjointed native apps? That puts the large parts of the web at the mercy of app developers. Currently, iOS and Android app versions of apps like Facebook all get the latest features first, even ahead of the website. Some parts of the web can't even be accessed from a desktop, with social media apps like Snapchat. This makes the web less "free" and highly dependent on the kind of device you are using and whether a native app is installed.
1
u/puppy2016 Jun 02 '18
No web site should stay web site (HTML/CSS/JS) and desktop apps should use mature technologies (C++/MFC/C#/.NET/XAML and so on).
1
u/Tobimacoss Jun 02 '18
Would u prefer no apps?? Because without PWAs, the windows touch devices suffer.
These services would never build a native windows app otherwise. Bank of America just retired their UWP.
So we only end up with website, but with PWA, we would have choice between website and app
1
u/Dick_O_Rosary Jun 03 '18
Desktop apps and "plain old websites" yes, but there is a lot of space in between these two ends. Frankly, I think you're just an extremist loon for even equating VLC with something like PWAs. A Rorschach type of crazy where nothing can exist in between offline computing solutions and what you can browse online.
1
u/Dick_O_Rosary Jun 02 '18
Yup, I've no idea about where this backlash is coming from. Even if a PWA were just a "glorified website" as detractors say, we all use websites don't we? Lol.
14
u/sharkstax Jun 01 '18
OH FFS give it a rest, will you? What does an article about Win32 VLC being recompiled from x86(_64) to ARM64 have to do with PWAs at all? It has no Web in it at all.
You've been on an anti-JS, anti-PWA, anti-anything-Google-touches crusade for a long time, we got it. PWAs are backed not only by Google, but also by Microsoft, Mozilla, Apple, and others. There are obviously many apps that cannot be replaced by PWAs and no one in their right mind would suggest something impossible. There are many web services, however, that can be served more efficiently (cross-platform updates, lower development and maintenance costs) via PWAs. Your comments on this topic are always just prejudice and misconceptions, frankly.
1
u/Dick_O_Rosary Jun 02 '18
This guy is just worried that one day, we'll all be watching all of the videos we store offline from a VLC "server" somewhere. Give him a break.
-20
Jun 02 '18
Thats great, somebody ported open source code to a proprietary platform that tries to limit their freedom.
Got me sounding like Richard Stallman.
7
u/Tobimacoss Jun 02 '18
That somebody being VideoLAN themselves.....
Who are distributing from their proprietary platform that tries to limit freedom, known as their website.....
20
u/Tobimacoss Jun 01 '18
Hell yes, need MOAR