Comments on: Web Two Point Zero http://blog.mattmecham.com/2006/01/18/web-two-point-zero/ A utopia of randomness from a bloke who develops internet software and is also a dad Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:08:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Matt http://blog.mattmecham.com/2006/01/18/web-two-point-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-1777 Matt Thu, 19 Jan 2006 23:45:43 +0000 http://www.mattmecham.com/blog1/2006/01/18/web-two-point-zero/#comment-1777 This is exactly the point - people are labelling anything that uses fancy javascript as "AJAX" and anything that uses AJAX as "Web 2.0". This is exactly the point – people are labelling anything that uses fancy javascript as “AJAX” and anything that uses AJAX as “Web 2.0″.

]]> By: Chris Griego http://blog.mattmecham.com/2006/01/18/web-two-point-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-1776 Chris Griego Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:37:38 +0000 http://www.mattmecham.com/blog1/2006/01/18/web-two-point-zero/#comment-1776 Ajax != Web 2.0, this kind of backlash is getting very tiring, more-so than the term Web 2.0 ever was. Ajax != Web 2.0, this kind of backlash is getting very tiring, more-so than the term Web 2.0 ever was.

]]> By: Jack Chapple http://blog.mattmecham.com/2006/01/18/web-two-point-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-1775 Jack Chapple Thu, 19 Jan 2006 20:40:41 +0000 http://www.mattmecham.com/blog1/2006/01/18/web-two-point-zero/#comment-1775 ^ Naturally, but, in small portions my point is valid :) ^ Naturally, but, in small portions my point is valid :)

]]> By: Dean Clatworthy http://blog.mattmecham.com/2006/01/18/web-two-point-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-1774 Dean Clatworthy Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:51:04 +0000 http://www.mattmecham.com/blog1/2006/01/18/web-two-point-zero/#comment-1774 "but lets not forgot that as we are only transferring the required raw data, the data transfer is considerably lower.." If the XMLHTTP requests aren't limited it increases data transfer and "can" be very inefficient. “but lets not forgot that as we are only transferring the required raw data, the data transfer is considerably lower..” If the XMLHTTP requests aren’t limited it increases data transfer and “can” be very inefficient.

]]> By: Jack Chapple http://blog.mattmecham.com/2006/01/18/web-two-point-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-1773 Jack Chapple Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:37:30 +0000 http://www.mattmecham.com/blog1/2006/01/18/web-two-point-zero/#comment-1773 Uh ^ " <a href="http://www.parm.net/web2.0/" rel="nofollow">http://www.parm.net/web2.0/</a> " ... Bit OTT.. lol Anyway, I do see what you mean about AJAX techniques being used everywhere and anywhere just for the sake of getting "Ooh's" and "Aah's" and generally looking "l33t", but lets not forgot that as we are only transferring the required raw data, the data transfer is considerably lower.. Anyway, for things like a AJAX WHOIS lookup, seems very pointless because usually the results that would be returned would be very minute in size anyway, but meh :P Uh ^ ” http://www.parm.net/web2.0/ ” …

Bit OTT.. lol

Anyway, I do see what you mean about AJAX techniques being used everywhere and anywhere just for the sake of getting “Ooh’s” and “Aah’s” and generally looking “l33t”, but lets not forgot that as we are only transferring the required raw data, the data transfer is considerably lower..

Anyway, for things like a AJAX WHOIS lookup, seems very pointless because usually the results that would be returned would be very minute in size anyway, but meh :P

]]> By: leapius http://blog.mattmecham.com/2006/01/18/web-two-point-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-1772 leapius Thu, 19 Jan 2006 08:18:00 +0000 http://www.mattmecham.com/blog1/2006/01/18/web-two-point-zero/#comment-1772 I believe this is the correct explanation of web 2.0: <a href="http://www.parm.net/web2.0/" rel="nofollow">http://www.parm.net/web2.0/</a> One of these days I'll get around to adding AJAX to my form submission verification routines and simple search boxes I guess.. cheers, leapius I believe this is the correct explanation of web 2.0:

http://www.parm.net/web2.0/

One of these days I’ll get around to adding AJAX to my form submission verification routines and simple search boxes I guess..

cheers,
leapius

]]> By: Don Wilson http://blog.mattmecham.com/2006/01/18/web-two-point-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-1771 Don Wilson Thu, 19 Jan 2006 07:47:28 +0000 http://www.mattmecham.com/blog1/2006/01/18/web-two-point-zero/#comment-1771 Thanks Matt for giving programmers like you and myself a good name. Thanks Matt for giving programmers like you and myself a good name.

]]> By: Rick Smith http://blog.mattmecham.com/2006/01/18/web-two-point-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-1770 Rick Smith Thu, 19 Jan 2006 05:20:21 +0000 http://www.mattmecham.com/blog1/2006/01/18/web-two-point-zero/#comment-1770 I very much agree with Matt. but because it's now a "buzzword" lets not forget that AJAX is still a good thing... even in its infancy. I've only begun tinkering with it myself, but as people begin doing good things with it, the buzz will die. Remember Intel processors with MMX? Nobody wanted a generic AMD with 3Dnow!... you had to have the MMX. And although this isn't about branding, nobody knows or even gives a crap about MMX or 3Dnow! anymore. The AJAX buzz will die in its own due time. As for the web 2.0 buzz which seems to be getting its high off of AJAX, I think web 2.0 is in for a rude awakening. One technology can't possibly make up an entire an entire web and it won't. If that's its sole base it'll die quicker than RDRAM. I very much agree with Matt. but because it’s now a “buzzword” lets not forget that AJAX is still a good thing… even in its infancy. I’ve only begun tinkering with it myself, but as people begin doing good things with it, the buzz will die. Remember Intel processors with MMX? Nobody wanted a generic AMD with 3Dnow!… you had to have the MMX. And although this isn’t about branding, nobody knows or even gives a crap about MMX or 3Dnow! anymore. The AJAX buzz will die in its own due time.

As for the web 2.0 buzz which seems to be getting its high off of AJAX, I think web 2.0 is in for a rude awakening. One technology can’t possibly make up an entire an entire web and it won’t. If that’s its sole base it’ll die quicker than RDRAM.

]]> By: Dean Clatworthy http://blog.mattmecham.com/2006/01/18/web-two-point-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-1769 Dean Clatworthy Thu, 19 Jan 2006 01:11:10 +0000 http://www.mattmecham.com/blog1/2006/01/18/web-two-point-zero/#comment-1769 It has irritated me to no end recently too; people on support forums whining "Why can't this be done with AJAX?". I wish they'd have kept it to good ol' XMLHTTP Requests and then it wouldn't have been such an annoying buzzword. It has irritated me to no end recently too; people on support forums whining “Why can’t this be done with AJAX?”. I wish they’d have kept it to good ol’ XMLHTTP Requests and then it wouldn’t have been such an annoying buzzword.

]]> By: Franklin http://blog.mattmecham.com/2006/01/18/web-two-point-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-1768 Franklin Wed, 18 Jan 2006 23:54:39 +0000 http://www.mattmecham.com/blog1/2006/01/18/web-two-point-zero/#comment-1768 That is so true! I even stumbled upon some webapps that had AJAX in their name while they only have something like livesearch or GMail-style 'stars' or something like that. It's pretty sad, but it usualy happens in the offline world too: most people say 'if it looks good, it has te be good' while that is quite often not the case (unless it's a product from a certain company in Cupertino :) That is so true! I even stumbled upon some webapps that had AJAX in their name while they only have something like livesearch or GMail-style ‘stars’ or something like that.

It’s pretty sad, but it usualy happens in the offline world too: most people say ‘if it looks good, it has te be good’ while that is quite often not the case (unless it’s a product from a certain company in Cupertino :)

]]>