PHP OR Ruby on Rails

[.josh]

It's all good. I invented my own term, Web something or other, but I can't remember what the version number was. Oh well.

 

Coincidentally, so did I.  It's called Stupid 2.0.

[neylitalo]

I hate The Internet.

 

Edit by me: Removed a potentially embarrassing statement. No, I won't tell you what it was.

[.josh]

I wish it would hurry up and be virtual reality internet already, where I can jack a wire into my brain and woosh!

[steelmanronald06]

Web 2.0 is a geek term for a new "package" of language and a new "style" that few people used to use!  It is just a stupid term for using things like:

 

Ruby on Rails

Ajax

CSS

(X)HTML

 

and a few other things that work great if you know how to use them, but doesn't make it the NEW web.  Think about the term Web 2.0.  It is like saying that it is a new internet!  It isn't. The only closest thing that comes to a new internet is Internet2

[marcreidy]

G'Morning all,

You're all just missing the point here.

People search the web using web2.0. I'll bet you all do too (maybe on this crusade of yours).

People understand web2.0 (and not Ajax)...and even if they don't it sounds better.

If I say Ajax...well, that could mean the European football team or washing powder (I'm in europe and we have these things, trust me). (Funnily enough my code comments always mention ajax...not that any of you bothered to check).

 

Me saying that my framework supports Web 2.0 (and I never said Web2.0 was a new Web mr stupid2.0) is a marketing spin. Did I invent the term?...no. Can I help remove its use? No...Would I if I could...h3ll no, why would I?

People get excited when you say web 2.0 (though not all the excitment is positive...ie you guys).

Thats the way the world is and you lot just need to get over it.

[redbullmarky]

i kinda understand where you're coming from with "is a marketing spin", but where my biggest issue comes from is that people voicing their side of the argument are all wrong, pompous, angry, etc whereas you on the other hand are correct.

 

thing is with Web 2.0 is I'd probably stab a guess that even O'Reilly, who coined the term, dont have an actual hard definition of what it means and probably just started life off as a thowaway term used to describe all of the new trends.

 

YouTube, MySpace, Digg, etc are commonly referred to as part of the Web 2.0 generation - yet neither really use/focus on AJAX (ok, YouTube uses a little bit for comments, etc, but that's about as far as it goes). MySpace is just a regular botch-up of HTML. Digg, when you remove all the niceyniceys, is just a collection of links to content that people can vote and talk about. Nothing forward thinking, here. Just a nice, pastel colour scheme and a few chunky fonts and nice gradients.

 

Where you state this on your site:

Web 2.0 (ajax) development included in the framework

would imply that Web 2.0 IS ajax or whatever. This is where people are trying to get you to see. You'd be better outlining more features that you consider being Web2.0 if you're gonna use it in this way.

 

The truth is, Web 2.0 isnt actually ANYTHING, other than a few ideas of modern web development. A funky term that oldies and the computer illiterates and the media can use to sound like they know what they're talking about.

 

And that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it

[dustinnoe]

Wow! How did this turn into a violent web 2.0 topic?

 

So here is my Web 2.0 answer.  I think the core idea behind  web 2.0 (which is what I think Web 2.0 is, AN IDEA) is to make use of separation of layers by striping all javascript and CSS from the "semantically correct" mark-up.  Graceful degradation.