So, Google released App Inventor, and my first instinct is that I hate the apps it will create with every fiber of my being. People will start putting together components in ways that they don’t understand, and the tool is either too powerful to use simply or too simple to be powerful. The apps will not be designed to handle failure, the apps will not have those cute features that turn out indispensable and I’ll be damned if they’re going to feel intuitive to use.
I’m lucky I have several instincts.
I believe in the power of the web app, but there’s no good go-to web app creation environment besides learning everything from the ground up. When Gruber compares App Inventor to Hypercard, I suspect he’s right. Every application exists in a spectrum where usefulness follows one axis and robustness another; People don’t use the stereotypical Visual Basic apps because they are interested in workmanship but because they get something done. An open environment and a sane platform needs to accommodate all kinds of apps, and give you free range to use as many or as few as you’d like.
I still stand by most of what I said in the opening paragraph, but understand that such is my worst-case stereotype, formed partly as a defense mechanism — I am famously eager to not see my profession and its reputation bogged down, but more than that, I wouldn’t like my apps replaced with counterparts that followed the rules of that universe. It’s not even actually two separate universes; it’s a splotch on the graph of the spectrum, including gems like TripLog, written in Objective-C by a seemingly reasonable author.
This is also why “let’s remove the tooling for Visual Basic, VBA, Access forms and people will stop using or writing bad software made possible by it” is such a broken premise. You can’t surgically remove one without affecting the other. And even if you could, the people who are driven will go on to double down on more advanced environments and continue to sully your world view of sunshine, lollipops and rainbows.
Let’s start here: Every app has the right to exist, and you have the right to choose your apps. As long as both are true, the worst that will ever stand in your way is a power-hungry, policy-loving CTO.
And let’s face it, if we took VBA away, people would just get by with Excel spreadsheets, with even less integrity and validation.
I think what grates is that it’s promoted as a ‘no programming’ application environment, rather than Hypercard – even if something like Hypercard is a great idea.
And of course people’s failure to understand the difference between building a shed or lean-to, a house, and a skyscraper. (Although of course a lot of programmers immediately build a skyscraper when what was required was a shed).
A side-thought : I wonder how the web would have done if it had started with XHTML Strict?
By JulesLt · 2010.07.12 21:52
It is so obvious, why Google introduced such a tool. They want to win the App race, as simple as that.
As soon they have more apps than Apple, they will get huge media attention, as how Android has surpassed Apple. I think that’s the whole goal of App Inventor.
By kusmi · 2010.07.13 07:22
It looks ugly as hell, but it gets the job done.
Fingers crossed Apple has something like this in the works already. This is basically Automator for mobile devices.
By James Aitken · 2010.07.13 09:55
I’d say the problem aren’t the tools but the people who use them. Even with tools like HyperCard, RealBasic or VBA people can create useful and even great tools. Because the tools are so powerful they enable even less knowledgable people to do that. And the results can be ugly and painful. But I’m sure they’ll still be good for the person who created them and are useful for him/her.
Of course it’d be preferable if everybody were as technically competent and tasteful as we are (cough-cough). But as that’s not going to happen, we may have to settle for people being able to work more efficiently.
And, coming to that, the critical question will be whether Google manage to create a tool that really simplifies people’s work and gives results that are reasonable for the pro, yet still working for the layman. That seems to be the art in creating those tools. HyperCard did a great job at it, and RealBasic, surprisingly, did as well. AppleScript OTOH doesn’t seem to be as successful as there are too many caveats between having an idea and a working script.
By ssp · 2010.07.13 10:46
@kusmi: That was my interpretation too. Both Apple and Google are playing hardball in the mobile sector just now, and overall, I’d say it benefits the end customer. The resulting rate of innovation is quite staggering, and I can’t help but feel that it wouldn’t have happened anywhere near as fast if Android hadn’t been nipping at the iPhone’s heels.
As for App Inventor itself, I can’t help but think of Klik & Play. It seemed like a wonderful idea when I first heard about it. At the ripe old age of twelve I began furiously designing a game: a huge, expansive sci-fi–themed RPG in the style A Link to the Past. Unfortunately, that dream crashing down to earth when I actually used Klik & Play. I’m no programmer, but I do appreciate that removal of complexity often leads to a comparable removal of flexibility and power. I fear that a lot (read: most) of the apps created with App Inventor will fall into the categories of either painfully limited and borderline useless, or just absolutely awful.
By Mike · 2010.07.13 11:43
Mike: Exactly. The problem with pretending that programming isn’t actually hard is that it’s actually hard, which is why many people are so quick to tell anything that smells of this to go stick its head in a local barnyard animal.
The point is that these apps can still do something, and many people do need apps that do something. Even a crapp (pause) can be better than nothing. There’s as always the whole freedom angle as well, as in it’s nice that this platform can offer such solutions when other platforms can’t.
By Jesper · 2010.07.13 20:36