Well our poll asking whether Ajax
is a Rich Internet Application (RIA) technology resulted in 70% of you saying YES,
it is a RIA technology. 22% said no and 8% admitted they don't know. Total poll
contributers was 560.
The conversation in the post was revealing though - i.e. it revealed it is a very confusing issue :-) My favorite comment was from Josh, who compared Ajax to pepperoni on a pizza:
"It seems to me what a lot of people in this thread are saying is akin to a pizza maker saying pepperoni isn't a pizza ingredient because you don't have to use it.
Yes, you can make a pizza without pepperoni, and yes you can make a web app without Ajax. But if you make a pepperoni pizza, then pepperoni is a pizza ingredient. If you make an RIA with Ajax, then Ajax is a Rich Internet Application technology."
I love pepperoni pizza, so that argument swayed me. In any case, a majority of you seem to agree that you can create a desktop app-like experience using a non-plugin or download technology like Ajax. On this topic, Alex Iskold mentioned in his latest post that Ajax as a trend seems to be on a downturn. He showed the following graph to illustrate it:
Alex reasoned that it's because "we are seeing the rise of libraries like jQuery that hide Ajax and take it to a whole new level. So the new trend we can perhaps call MetaAjax."
I wonder if some developers out there can explain, in laymens terms if possible, what this MetaAjax is and whether it will be able to 'compete' with the likes of Flex and WPF? That is: will rich, interactive web pages and apps in 2007 and beyond be increasingly done using Adobe or Microsoft technologies? Or will vendor-independent approaches like jQuery or Ajax keep up.
Another way to ask this is: what RIA technologies will Google use in 2007 and beyond, to perhaps push interactivity beyond the current Gmail or Google Maps experience?
Pepperoni pizza pic: Jym Ferrier
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2962
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
Interesting analogy.
Now that we've tasted the pepperoni, next thing is the meatball of web development. Or better yet, the "combo" or "supreme", where pepperoni (aka Ajax) is one of the ingredients, but it's also combined with other ingredients as delicious or perhaps even more?
Posted by: RBA | January 18, 2007 2:06 PM
RBA, did you mean [del.icio.us]?
If so, I think its intriguing... Can companies like del.icio.us and Technorati give us more libraries to work with in JavaScript?
Alex
Posted by: Alex Iskold | January 18, 2007 2:40 PM
OMG! This rates extremely high on the "the words are the things" scale. The words are NOT the things.
Posted by: Bob Denny | January 18, 2007 5:56 PM
OMG! This rates extremely high on the "the words are the things" scale. The words are NOT the things.
Posted by: Bob Denny | January 18, 2007 5:56 PM
Oops, sorry. Yeah, this is more noise. But I had no feedback that my first reply was accepted. The second one was rejected (too many comments per unit time), and I didn't see my first before I did it again (3rd time).
Some web interfaces suck.
Posted by: Bob Denny | January 18, 2007 5:58 PM
HTML is easy. Javascript is still easy. Ajax is hard. especially when you throw in multiple concurrent ajax!
That's where jquery comes in. I can equal the other technologies, while having as more fun! It requires no buy-in to closed technologies, or lengthy coding. Jquery makes ajax simple enough that even a junior programmer can embrace it while un-learning bad habits and browser specific horrors!
Posted by: Jake Wolpert | January 18, 2007 9:03 PM
Alex, no, I didn't mean del.icio.us. I was actually using the word for what it really means - or what it "used" to mean, depending on who you ask :-)
Posted by: RBA | January 18, 2007 10:04 PM
OMG, Ajax is going down turn. No..........
May be we need to come out Ajax 2.0/Extended Version :)
Posted by: PohEe.com | January 19, 2007 7:06 AM
There is a clear word usage problem when "delicious" has lost it's status as an adjective. Then again, words are meant to adapt. Ask an Italian about pepperoni and he'll tell you it's a bell pepper. Ask anyone in North America... and it's a meaty pizza topping. :)
So if words adapt to their surrounding, why shouldn't technology as well? Sure, it does already - no meta Ajax needed. Just use some creativity (for finding new solutions) and the rely on libraries for the stuff thats been "done already". Ajax implementations are already becoming more sophisticated, even fielding the "big" problems like security.
Posted by: Tara | January 19, 2007 7:40 AM
(Yes, I'm a dork - the URL on my previous post is wrong. Sorry)
Posted by: Tara | January 19, 2007 7:43 AM
mmmm pizza.
Posted by: michael arrington | January 19, 2007 9:39 AM
Probably worth giving a shout out to prototype and script.aculo.us libraries, which are used to varying degrees by Digg, Wordpress, Wetpaint, 37Signals, and countless others (including us). We used to build our own stuff, and now that we've shifted on to these libraries, we save a lot of hassle.
They're big downloads, but in our opinion, worth it.
Posted by: danny | January 19, 2007 10:17 AM
I think it would be great to see a library that separates model and the view in a clean way. Like Swing in Java...
Does anyone know if this already exists?
Alex
Posted by: Alex Iskold | January 19, 2007 10:35 AM
ajax is now not ajax because it's now wrapped in facade layers? i've heard some boneheaded things in my day, but that nearly takes the cake. maybe lumber doesn't exist anymore because it's all wrapped up in prefab housing components? sheesh.
if words are going to have any meaning at all, we need to avoid meaningless terminology. if some technology is fundamentally different than ajax, then it needs a new name. else, it does not. simple.
a library built on ajax is not fundamentally new. therefore, no new name required. simple.
and as far as a reduction in the number of ajax posts - how in the world is that indicative of anything but our growing acceptance and familiarty with ajax?
and let's not forget that some of the biggest (and growing) web applications in the world use significant amounts of ajax - gmail, google calendar, youtube - all hidden in plain site. ajax is invading the office space, too - through google and other means like postpath. is ajax really on the decline?
'metaajax', then, is another horrible term - like 'grok' - that is essentially meaningless. everybody wants to invent a new word. i hear it drives traffic. i have one - it's called 'StuPid' - it stands for 'stupid idea' or 'stupid process' (pid = process id).
Posted by: Peter | January 19, 2007 2:53 PM
No... might be so for RIA dev. but not for web development. It's more mushroom I think :)
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | January 20, 2007 1:38 AM
Note: I have deleted some comments in this thread that were offensive and personally attacked me. If you want to comment on this site, please be respectful and stick to the topic. Sadly, some people in this world seem to get their kicks out of throwing stones and attacking others, rather than contributing anything new or useful to the world.
Posted by: Richard MacManus | January 22, 2007 1:05 PM
I think the question is how much further Javascript / HTML can go? Without using any additional technologies there is a point in which the developer can do no more and HAS to move over to more rich technologies.
As Flex / WPF apps start to get out there will the users expectations of a user experience change? If they do will developers be able to or want to continue using AJAX, and if so can they convince their clients?
Javascript can only do so much..
Posted by: Steve Cox | January 23, 2007 3:20 AM