From Xojo’s website:
Use one powerful language to create your web app instead of HTML, CSS, PHP, JavaScript, or AJAX, saving you tons of development time.
So …
Say it ain’t so … 
4 Likes
You are right, free is a myth. I should have posted: We have been spoiled by the promise of free stuff from the Open Source movement 
With Web 1.0, it was possible to develop a Web App with just writing Xojo code.
Web 2.0 introduced new functionalities. Of one wants to use them, he may need to dig into other territories. You can do a lot learning CSS for example. Creating JS code was also possible with Web 1.0
Web is a different animal than Desktop. Desktop is easier, but if one wants to develop an App to run in MacOS and has never used a Mac before, he will have to learn something. The same is true with Web 2.0
As someone who has created his first web site back 1996, I have experimented with several web technologies along time. None of them is perfect of quite complete. As a result, one ends up mixing HTML, CSS, Php, Javascript, and the occasional Perl script. Talking about fragmentation…
Xojo Web 1 and 2 are not centered on people like me, but rather, on users of Xojo who came from Desktop, and want to port their code to the Web, or explore without having to learn all the under the hood intricacies. IMO, they succeeded providing a pretty good tool. Getting results in a matter of hours rather than days is a pretty impressive feast.
Of course, as the developer ambition grows, he or she will start looking into some CSS or Javascript to get there, just like Desktop developers quickly discover declares or plugins.
The nice thing about Xojo is the relatively smooth learning curve.
4 Likes
I was going to but I can’t as its been hidden/deleted.
One could say the same about desktop and people not wanting to touch declares but I know that some people who use Xojo either don’t know they exist or don’t want to look behind the curtain, which could be said about using xojo web. Because someone can drive a car and change their washer fluid doesn’t mean they want to get their hands dirty under the hood.
If something offered by xojo needs you to learn another language then what they offer doesn’t satisfy their target markets needs and should be tweaked until it does.
As for the OPs question, I would do some testing on a few key pages/features and see how it goes as there’s no list of current showstoppers until you hit one and start searching the forum/feedback.
3 Likes
It was in the Testers category. I’ve now moved it to Web.
2 Likes
When was the last time you touched some assembler, Hardware interruptions, etc for a desktop app?
No touching the “underlaying tech” is called high-level language and that is what xojo promissed. Not being able to deliver their promisses is a different thing. 
2 Likes
ok 
There is no comparison between those and HTML/CSS/JS 
Just because the desktop actually delivers the promisse of shielding you from the underliying tech
1 Like
That is what RubberViewsWE provides to Web 1.00.
Web 2.00 has potentially the ability to to the same with CSS. Under the hood, of course. That is why I did not produce a Web 2.00 version.
1 Like
I meant there is no comparison between the complexity of them
Web 2.0 does shield one from HTML/CSS/JS as long as one doesn’t need anything that goes beyond the basics, same with desktop.
2 Likes
Actually, web 2.0 fails the basics, so you will end up needing to patch things up directly bypassing the framework and end up with something that probably will break at some point in the future. That’s why I gave up on it until it’s ready, I don’t want to write JS, if I need to, I will just write JS directly, safely and completely.
2 Likes
I don’t know if you have used Web 1.00, but JS (and CSS) was required to go beyond the basics.
I love JS, but fact is, as it stands, it requires extensive libraries to develop the kind of applications Xojo Web is targeted at.
Let alone the UI. In that respect, Xojo’s RAD is an excellent asset to start from. Even if you were to dump entirely any server side processing and do only JS on the client, it is far easier to start with a clean UI, which in my opinion Xojo Web 2.00 provides.
In matters of web development, there is no such thing as one fits all. None of the current languages used for web development is perfect.
No. Exactly because of this fail.
Don’t misquote. You removed the truth of the argument.
2 Likes
Whatever. Since you don’t use Xojo Web, I don’t see how your statement could be valid anyway.
Besides, in matter of Web, pure JS is not a valid way to build sites.
Bad assumption. I just don’t use it because it fails every time when I test it.
Agree, never said such thing too.
1 Like
At it’s present state it works for me for basic apps right out of the box. But that’s just me, obviouly your definition of “basic” is different than mine and in no way I’m implying your definition is incorrect (it’s yours and valid to you so that’s what matters to you )
Agree. No problem at all, always.
I am liking web2 and api2 significantly more than the 1. But even thou I decided not to upgrade anything, I make new projects in web2, but old projects remain in web1.
5 Likes