posted by dsk on October 16th, 2011 at 10:00PM
>Google Maps doesn't really have anything to do with JavaShit
Yes and No. Without JS, Google maps is what map quest used to be. With JS, it's magic.
>I would really prefer it if I didn't have to download the map-application every time I wanted to access it.
Every web-app can be re-implemented as a native install app. Even your blog. That's not what makes them special.
Yes and No. Without JS, Google maps is what map quest used to be. With JS, it's magic.
>I would really prefer it if I didn't have to download the map-application every time I wanted to access it.
Every web-app can be re-implemented as a native install app. Even your blog. That's not what makes them special.
|
posted by dennisn on October 17th, 2011 at 7:40PM
Disagree. I remember a time before Google Maps, and before Map Quest, perhaps. Once upon a time, my dad somehow had a CD of Toronto-area maps (I guess they were important in the Real Estate Industry), which I managed to rip (a massive (~300mbish) collection of images) -- and I distinctly remember being so proud to contribute something back to The Net -- i.e. the very idea of somebody providing /free maps/ *of the world!?* was ludicrous back then. If Map Quest, or anything even remotely like it, had existed back then, it would have been sensationally popular, regardless of how crappy it's UI was.
Now that you mention it, I should give Map Quest a second look [1]. I vaguely remember the reason I stopped using it was that Google had better quality maps -- more roads / landmarks -- JS was just a footnote. [1] MapQuest has been utterly infected by JS. "You must have JavaScript enabled to view MapQuest features.". I guess Google still has the upper hand, because it does offer non-JS "mobile" maps :s. Sigh. (My web-app /is/ re-implemented in a normal (native install :p) app -- ie. my RSS reader. It's a really cool app, that I love. (Liferea.) |
