Angular vs React vs Vue.JS

This is the shortest and most effective comparison that aims to make the decision making process easier.

Angular: 

Pros:

  • The oldest and therefore very mature.
  • A complete framework in itself and ideal for large projects.
  • The MEAN stack remains, to date, one of the most popular stacks for web-development so finding jobs is never tough for Angular developers.
  • With NativeScript, you can use it to develop smartphone apps.

Cons:

  • If you don’t know, don’t like or don’t want to learn TypeScript, I would suggest staying away from it because the current releases are TypeScript based.
  • Packed with features, it’s a huge framework and therefore takes a fair amount of time to learn and master.

React:

Pros:

  • Been around for a fair amount of time and therefore can be said to be just as mature as Angular.
  • Smaller than Angular and therefore easier to learn.
  • Just as popular, if not more, and therefore has a well-developed community.
  • Just as many jobs out there for it as for Angular.
  • React Native allows for it to be used to make Android apps.

Cons:

  • You will have to learn JSX. Basically the idea is that in ReactJS, you try to maximize your use of JS and minimize your use of HTML. JSX kinda merges both. Obviously this adds to the learning curve.
  • Not a complete framework. React Developers almost always use Redux or some other flux implementation for state management. Code often becomes a real mess with large projects.

Vue.JS:

Pros:

  • Has just as many features as React, if not more.
  • Small enough for you to be able to learn it in a single day.
  • Great for small projects.
  • Gaining popularity real quick.
  • Resembles the original Angular.JS so if you are familiar with it, you’d love Vue.
  • Unlike React, with Vue, the goal is to maximize the use of HTML and minimize the use of JS.
  • Although not a complete framework, it comes with it’s own router and flux implementation, that, although independent projects, offer seamless integration with Vue itself.

Cons:

  • Relatively new and therefore has a small community and fewer jobs are available.
  • NativeScript has a plugin for Vue support but it not supposed to be ready for development yet. Although, it seemed pretty functional when I tried it.
 

Complimenting Complements

This post assumes familiarity with “Two’s Complement”, “One’s Complement”  and an understanding of “Positional Numeral Systems”.

Why is the Two’s Complement called the Two’s Complement?

Ever wondered why the two’s complement and the one’s complement are named as such? We were told that to calculate the two’s complement of a number, you add 1 to its one’s complement. But why? When calculating the one’s complement, we simply subtract every digit from 1, so why don’t we subtract every digit from 2 in two’s complement? And maybe, you tried to reason with yourself about how there’s no “2” in the binary system and so that mehtod would not work anyway. There is however a much better way to understand and explain it. To understand this, you need to understand the difference between the radix complement and the diminished radix complement. 

According to wiktionary:

  • The radix complement is the number which, when added to an n-digit number in radix-r, results in r^n. An alternative way of looking at it is that it is the smallest possible (n-1)-digit number in radix-r. The radix complement for radix-r is called r’s complement. We get it by adding 1 to the diminished radix complement.
  • The diminished radix complement is the number which, when added to an n-digit number in radix-r results in r^n -1. An alternative way of looking at is is that it is the largest possible n-digit number in radix-r. The diminished radix complement for radix-r is called (r-1)’s complement. We get it by subtracting every digit from (r-1)

… 

 

Sybill Trelawney

Sybill Trelawney, the Divination teacher at Hogwarts, was poorly received by her fellow staff, her students and the fans of her universe for reasons that all translate to “She was a fraud. She wasn’t a true seer and therefore not an eligible candidate for the job.” I however have always had a very different opinion about her. I believe that not only was she not a fraud but also a perfect candidate for the job, not to mention the fact that she did actually possess a gift.

We know that she was the great-granddaughter of some celebrated seer named “Cassandra Trelawney” and that Dumbledore went to meet her at the “Hog’s Head” and that no sooner than he met her, he realized that she didn’t possess her great-grandmother’s gift. Then she went into a trance and made the prophecy about Harry defeating The Dark Lord, and Dumbledore decided to hire her because he could tell that she was gonna make more of these prophecies and wanted her to be close to himself when that happened.

Now I want you to think. You are the headmaster of a school, and you want to hire a teacher for a karate class. You have to choose between a guy who is incredibly strong and can pick up and throw around the room just about anyone who picks a quarrel with him regardless of how good their karate is and a guy who spent years learning and mastering the sport and is a great fighter. Who will you choose? True that the first guy has the gift of strength and therefore has a good chance of winning most fights but he may not know anything about the sport, whereas the second guy has nothing except for a thorough knowledge of exactly what you want him to teach to your students. I don’t know about you, but if I was you I would probably hire the second guy, unless of course the first one demonstrated better karate skills than the second one.

Let’s try a different situation. You are the headmaster of Hogwarts and you want to hire a divination teacher. You have to choose between a woman who is well-versed in all the practices and techniques of divination (e.g. reading tea-leaves and making predictions from a pack of cards or dreams) or a centaur who, like all centaurs, was born with inexplicable knowledge of the cosmos and unfathomable divination skills that only require for him to look up at the sky. The woman doesn’t possess any magical powers that allow her to tap into the spirit world but she knows all that is known to man about the art of divination whereas the centaur who doesn’t have any need for those human methods probably doesn’t even know them. In fact, in the potterverse, the centaurs mainly, if not only, use the skies to predict the future and that too with seemingly minimal calculation or effort. It may be safe to assume that they aren’t even aware of the other methods used by humans. So, if it was for me to decide, I’d hire the woman, because she knows her stuff and so should be able to teach it whereas the centaur may not even know shit about the subject and is just naturally gifted at predicting the future by looking at skies.

We saw enough proof in the book of the fact that Sybill actually did know a lot about divination. She was accustomed to using all the techniques that she taught in class, and a whole lot of her predictions came true. She predicted the death of Dumbledore a few hours before it happened, predicted the order of death of certain groups of people. There are better posts about her predictions coming true so I’m not gonna list all of them here. So we know that Sybill certainly did have the knowledge, and that makes her a good candidate for the job. And we are also aware of the fact that she actually did possess a gift. That makes her a perfect candidate for the job.

One thing to note is that she herself was totally unaware of her gift. Clearly she had no control over it but given time and practice, it could be possible for her to get a handle on it. If Dumbledore wasn’t such a jerk, he’d have told her and tried to help her but he chose to not only keep her in the dark but to also make sure that she was one of the least respected members of the staff. Dumbledore and the Teachers routinely spoke ill of her and didn’t shy away from telling their students that she was a fraud and that her predictions weren’t to be taken seriously.

Let’s address the “fraud” question now. She did, at times, make predictions that sound way too ridiculous and didn’t even come true. Why? The answer is very simple. Entertainment. When you have a job like hers and everyone expects you to make cool predictions every once in a while, you have to have a mysterious air around you and you have to make predictions and you have to say stuff to make sure you have the required amount of attention. Come to think of it, she once predicted that Harry will have 12 children. Everyone knows that sounds made up including herself and so the whole point of saying it was to entertain students with some mildly humorous predictions which was a good change from the darker predictions she used to make, two of which she made in her first class and went on to become popular gossip topics.

Sybill Trelawney is underrated an underappreciated and she deserves better than to be called a fraud and better than to be insulted by her staff members.

 

Rewriting Legacy Code

I once wrote an answer on Quora about the improbability of a programming language to completely die out once it has gained popularity. The idea, not so original, was that there are two factors preventing a language from dying:

  1. A significant amount of code is written in it and a significant amount of people or other code depend strongly on it. An example is Linux. Now Linux has always been C and always will be. As long as Linux exists, it would be impossible for C to die out.
  2. Everyone knows about it. The problem with a programming language being popular enough for it’s existence to be common knowledge is that there will always be people who’ll be fond of it and would want it to never die out. The best example would be Richard Eng, the smalltalk evangelist who has grown more popular than the language itself and likes to call himself Mr. Smalltalk.

This post is about the first reason. C, PHP and JavaScript are three of the most popular and most hated languages that are getting closer and closer to being about as old as time itself. For my own reasons, I both like and dislike the 3 and also rely a lot on them. Let’s assume everyone agrees to killing all 3 of them. Now the problem is that C is:

  1. The language Linux is written in.
  2. The language most programmers start with. (Often this is because universities prefer to teach it in the earlier semesters.)
  3. More or less the only mature language that has the least amount of abstraction that one could ask for except for C++, which is a mess and an offspring of C itself and therefore not worth talking about in this post.

… 

 

Die Verwandlung

I just finished reading Franz Kafka’s “Die Verwandlung,” translated into “The Metamorphosis” by Stanley Corngold. Before I even started reading it, I’d told my classmate about how it seemed like a weird one — something I’d deduced from its synopsis — and he’d responded with “Franz Kafka’s works tend to be.”

Now that I’m done with it, I’m not quite sure how I feel about it. For one, it was incredibly short. Like I knew it was a short story but I’d still been expecting it to be longer. Then there comes the fact that (SPOILER ALERT) 
… 

 

What if logic isn’t actually all that logical?

Logic, science, reason, all of it is what? Rules that always hold true for everything that they are defined for. But who really defines them? We do. Who comes up with them? We do. And what are they based on? Observation.

I remember, as a kid, reading an article in my native language, titled “What if there was no Sun?” and it, as you can guess, was full of stupid stuff like “pitch black, ice cold, nobody would survive for any more than … e.t.c.” While I was reading it, I couldn’t help but wonder why a world without our Sun would ever have any life-forms that need the sun to survive? Or why the humans on such a world would not be used to not having a sun and thus be optimized for survival in such harsh conditions.

My point? We believe logic is absolute. Maybe it is, but only for our world. We know that if we pull at a free movable object, it would move towards us. But for all we know, there could be a world out there in which doing so would result in that very object moving away from us. That sounds illogical, stupid, and inconceivable but if it happened all the time in our world, it wouldn’t be.

We believe that we can make deductions using reasoning, but how reasonable would that be when that very art of reasoning itself is a set of deductions based on observation. What about observation? Do we even really see our world as it is? We don’t even know if we all see the world the same way. A really narrow range of the electromagnetic spectrum is sensed by our eyes and is used by the brain to form an image. This is literally akin to reading a detailed book and imagining the events and the characters. Using this analogy, we can tell that while the image can be extremely detailed, it will still be limited by the amount of information it is based on. Imagine if our ears were so trained that we could, in the absence of light, form images and see using sound. Is that inconceivable? But what really is the difference between the ear and the eyes? Both sense and interpret waves with the help of the brain. If we could see the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum, we would have a much smaller list of opaque materials than we currently do.

This does of course suggest that it doesn’t matter if the science and logic we so rely on is limited by our observation as long as it holds true for our observable world, but the idea was the very fact that it would be just limited to our observable world. This is kind of like how we wouldn’t be able to tell if there were any more-than-3-dimensional-beings out there observing us right now because we can’t perceive or observe more than 3 dimensions.

 

 

How GoDaddy robbed me.

Humble request to all readers: Share this post.

I really want to keep this as short as I can and address only the primary issue. For those who don’t know, GoDaddy is one of the most popular domain registrar’s in the market and I started using it a couple of years back as a means for getting rid of my local registrar who had been screwing up routinely in a most inefficient way.

Abstract: Lately, they have not only made a few irrational and immoral decisions, but they also robbed me of a rather large sum of money and then messed up my order completely. In short, I paid thrice for the same order and I didn’t even get what I ordered. Furthermore, somehow the same domain was purchased twice using my account and I have absolutely no idea how it’s even possible. … 

 

Did Nokia really not do anything wrong? They did.

“We didn’t do anything wrong but somehow we still lost.”

Those were the words of the CEO. Do I agree with them? No.

Let’s go back to, say, 2006. Every average person had a Nokia. The Motorollas? Those were what people bought between two successive Nokias. Sony Errison? Well, that one had its own cult. There was a wide variety of different lines of phones in the market, each aimed at a different class of users. The basic featured for those looking for a cheap calling device, the multimedia enabled for those that wanted more, the communicators for those that afforded them.

That wasn’t all. That was the time when Nokia did some strange experiments resulting in the production of some really weird and unique phones. And guess what? A large percentage of those took off as well. Examples of such models could be the NGage and the Ngage QD – Gamepad shaped devices aimed at gaming. I happen to have owned both models. Nokia was also infamous for coming up with some really weird designs, which, surprisingly, sold just as well.

Why? Cause Nokia owned the market. They were among the pioneers and they had almost monopolized the mobile market. What they produced was good and was pretty regardless of how shitty it might actually be.

All the awesome devices that Nokia ever made were … 

 

Monolingual Autism

You can google that if you like and realize that it may not really be a real thing. It’s something that I have been observing for a long time and I’m sure you’ve seen or felt it at different points in your life.

A while back, LifeHack posted about people having different personalities when speaking in different languages. So I thought: Is it possible for a person to be autistic in a particular language and enthusiastic and energetic in another? Sounds stupid, eh? Well, here’s an example that might make it sound slightly less stupid and slightly more relatable:

Think of a kid from India or Sri Lanka or even Russia — or any other place where English isn’t really the first language. If that kid goes to a decent school, he’s probably learning English and his teacher probably encourage him to converse in it when possible. Let’s name that kid Connor.
Connor is 14 years old, he goes to a decent school and converses in English with his teachers simply because it’s a school rule. Connor speaks his native language at home and when among friends and he’s pretty talkative. Connor has no trouble reading or writing in English. But sometimes, e.g. in a group of several people, that he doesn’t know very well, who are confidently speaking to each other in English (although they also know Connor’s language), Connor gets tongue-tied. Connor has to put too much effort into forming every sentence that he then speaks. Connor, therefore, chooses to speak in his own language. The greater the number of such occurrences, the stronger Connor’s belief that he can’t converse effectively in English and the harder it will be for him to do so the next time he is faced with the prospect. At times like this, Connor get’s mildly autistic.

I have a theory. If Connor were to speak to someone that doesn’t know any other language besides English, he probably won’t have this much trouble. I personally believe that all this happens because it feels stupid and illogical to converse with people in a secondary language when you don’t need to. If someone knows Connor’s language then he would prefer for them to speak it instead of English.

This makes it sound like just as much a matter of choice as a question of confidence. So what is the issue? And that, is exactly why I chose to compare it with autism. The thing with disorders is that you can’t just choose to not have them. Sometimes you know you have them and that they are stupid but you can’t just think your way out of it. I believe that this is something like a disorder where the brain just doesn’t accept the idea of doing something as illogical as conversing in a secondary language when you can choose not to. Secondly, every time it kicks in, it is accompanied by nervousness and hesitation and makes you look like this quiet, timid, shy personality and occasionally raising questions like “You don’t say much, do you?” or perhaps even “Is he autistic?”

Can it be overcome? No idea. Does it need to be overcome? Logically? No.

 

Albus Dumbledore’s sacrifices

Let’s get to it. We all know about Dumbledore’s past, and his friendship with Grindelwald and the whole “For the greater good” thing. Not all of us, however, realized the fact that he never stopped living his life by that motto. Albus Dumbledore always did everything for the greater good.

“You’ve been raising him like a pig for slaughter.” – Severus Snape.

Yes, remember that big reveal to Snape? Dumbledore making clear his belief that in order for the Dark Lord to perish Harry had to die? Remember how he didn’t even try to deny the fact that he was, in fact, just keeping Harry alive so that he could die at the right moment?

But that wasn’t it.  … 

 

Never do [insert temporal adverb] what can be done [insert another temporal adverb]

You may be familiar with the 2014 film titled “Predestination,” that involves the most mind-blowing time-loop. While watching it, I didn’t fail to notice this:

97d8c-11137604_805401089515710_1303419438_n.jpg

“Never do yesterday what should be done tomorrow.”

At first I laughed. Then I decided to give it some thought. My first and last interpretation of it was the same. In short, it’s about not messing with the past. If something happened at a particular point in time, then you have no reason to try and make it happen earlier.

However, there is a far simpler explanation for it. And that’s simply the fact that it’s just a tiny bit of humor from the creators and logically, in essence, it isn’t a lot different from what Aaron Burr spoke of: … 

 

Batmen Analysis

So, I’ve been wanting to do this for quite some time. You see, there’s a whole lot of Batman movies out there along with a good number of Batmen. With different actors, playing the same character, in different movie adaptations, there come arguments between fans over the superiority of certain adaptations and portrayals.

In this post, I am going to analyze all the live-action movie Batmen, from Michael Keaton to Ben Affleck, and judge them based on how well they portrayed both Bruce Wayne, and Batman. Before we continue, let’s briefly discuss the two personalities. Bruce Wayne is a billionaire orphan, disciplined and mature for his age. While he may be well known to the world, he can be called reclusive. His dark past is what gives him his wisdom and what gives him the look of a man who has dealt with the truth, up close. But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have feelings or a sense of humor. He can be touched, and he ain’t witless.
Batman, Bruce’s vigilante personality, is an all righteous, assertive tough-guy who values human-life above all emotion and justice. His instincts and choices are rarely to be doubted. He is also a quick-witted strategist and a really skilled fighter. Also, he is worthy enough to lift the Mjolnir. He knows the difference between what’s right and what’s (seemingly) needed, and he knows better than to let his emotions drive him. Well, let’s start analysing, shall we? … 

 

Physics jokes

I’ve been casually going through the answers to this question for the past hour. I came across a lot of hilarious ones and an almost equal number of those that are probably hilarious to those that get them. Yes, that does imply that there are quite a lot of them that I don’t get. There used to be more, but I figured them out, all thanks to the internet.

It’s amazing how educational this shit can be. Consider the following scenario:

Joe is a Physics student. Joe loves Physics. Joe wants to be a Physicist. Joe idolizes Hawking, and shares – on his social media – jokes about Schrodinger’s cat. Joe is browsing Quora and he comes across this question. Among the answers, he reads this: Erwin Schrodinger and Werner Heisenberg are driving down the road with the top down, having the time of their lives. They blow past a hidden state patrol officer who jumps in his car and pulls them over a few miles down the road. The officer gets out of his car, hitches up his britches, and saunters up to Heisenberg who is driving.
He motions to roll the window down and Werner complies, then the officer asks: “Sir, do you have any idea how fast you were going?” To which Heisenberg replies: “No Sir. But I know exactly where I am.”

Joe doesn’t get it. He opens Google in a new tab and types “Heisenberg’s.” Googles suggest’s his uncertainty principle and the slightest bit of reading gets Joe smiling. Now he reads through the rest of the joke, which he gets, and reposts it.

Why does Joe behave this way, and how is this shit educational?

It’s understandable for people to not get jokes, and even more understandable for people to not get Physics related jokes. But is it acceptable for a Physics geek to not get a particular joke? Of course it is. Joe, however, was afraid that if people found out that he didn’t know Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle they’ll never respect his intelligence again. He is particularly afraid of his fellow “physicists” finding out. Joe felt ashamed of himself. He couldn’t stand how he’d failed to get a popular Physics joke – one that starred Hawking. He felt compelled to figure that joke out and chose to research and expand his knowledge enough to, if not more, get that joke. When he was done, there was one less Physics joke that he didn’t get, and one more principle that he knew.

It seems that Joe’s preferred road to being a Physicist involves reducing the number of Physics jokes that he doesn’t get to a minimum. It sounds funny, and stupid, but it’s smart, and it works. Let’s do a little math, shall we? There are 100+ answers on that Question. Most of the ones I came across had at least two jokes. It’s unlikely for two successive jokes in an answer to be about the same principle, so that means that there are at least 200 jokes below that answer. Obviously, there would be repetition, so let’s just go noob and halve the number. Now we got 100 unique jokes. If Joe reads them all fails to get half of them, he will research and read up on at least 50 different principles/theories.

Jokes motivate Joe to study. But what if Joe actually spent all that time, which he spends reading jokes, studying? That way he could still learn 50(or more) different principles/theories in the same time as he could before and he could do more.

Conclusion: Joe is lazy, not stupid.

 

“Omelette du fromage”

So, around the time Assasin’s Creed Unity came out, I came across this video. It was quite popular among my friends back then. At 1:18, we see two guys seated on a table facing one another and as something lands on it, one of them says: “Oh no! My omelette du fromage” at which, Arno pops up and replies: “It’s actually omelette au fromage.” That’s the first and last time I heard that phrase.

A few days ago, I came across the term again somewhere on the internet and so I googled it. Its literal meaning being “omelette of cheese,” it actually originates from an episode of the popular tv show “Dexter’s Laboratory.” The episode itself is called “The Big Cheese,” in which, Dexter can’t say anything except “oomelette du fromage”. 

Funnily enough, throughout the episode, his day at school is better than the average because, as it happens, saying that same damned phrase everytime he opens his mouth, seems to work out just fine for him. He nails a french test, and a mathematics question and gets a bunch of girls fawning, and even manages to deal with some bullies.

So why does Arno say “It’s actually omelette au fromage.”? Because “omelette au fromage” means “omelette with cheese,” and that’s the correct term to use for a cheese omelete. As you can guess, fromage  means cheese, while omelette means pretty much what you think it does. Therefore, “du”=”of” and “au”=”with.”

 

The Virtual Reality I want.

There’s something of a silent war going on around us at this time, and it has been going on for quite a while. I know that I wrote “Virtual Reality” in the title, but that’s merely due to the fact that it’s the generally preferred term for all of those projects out there making headsets and goggles, but otherwise this post does cover my ideas about its brothers that go by the names “Mixed Reality” and “Augmented Reality.”

So, before we go on, let’s talk about how the brothers differ. Virtual Reality is where Oculus is the major player in the market, and has met fine success. The HTC Vive is another which may not have stirred as much excitement but so far, all things positive have been said about it. The idea of virtual reality, in terms your grandma could understand, is that you put on a headset and you find yourself in a different world altogether. You look around, and all you get to see is what the headset shows you, while you are completely distracted from what’s actually around you. Rather like the Nygmatech in Batman: Forever. You put it on, and the next thing you know, you are in a forest; or perhaps in the middle of the French Revolution? … 

 

Interstellar vs 2001: A Space Odyssey

Ever since it’s release in 2014, Christopher Nolan’s “Interstellar”, has often been compared to Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey.”

I was fairly late at watching both. Since I missed the release of 2001 by more than 30 years because I wasn’t at all close to existing around the time it was released and for the the first few years after I had started to exist, it wasn’t entirely possible for me to watch and comprehend it.
As for Interstellar, all I have to say is that I wasn’t really watching many movies when it came out. I guess it was because my internet sucked and because I was dealing with exams so I put it off for a while, since I didn’t want to ruin it by watching it in a hurry. It wouldn’t have made much difference, but since I had heard good things about it, I wanted to be relaxed and with ample time before I set about to watch it.

My reaction to both was: What the hell?

2001: A Space Odyssey,  is considered the ultimate classic and some would go as far as calling it the best one of Kubrick’s works. (Having never watched any of his others, I can’t say much on the matter.)  So it started off with a music that sounded pretty familiar and that’s all thanks to Toy Story, and after a few minutes into it I was like what the hell? That scene didn’t have to be as stretched. And my reaction was pretty similar to the one in which a woman walks along a velcro’ed path carrying a lunch tray to a sleeping guy. The scene with the apes too was unnecessarily long so I fast forwarded through it and missed the actual punchline (i.e. how they suddenly discover that a bone can be used as a melee weapon). Oh and the part at the end that is known as the “Stargate sequence” All you see for 10 minutes is landscapes with colors messed up and for what?
Other than that, the lack of a decent conclusion might make it a cool suspense for some, but for me, it makes it suck. Nothing was explained. Although the novels that were released, and the sequel that followed, and countless fan theories suggested that it was aliens leaving all those monoliths and stuff. Let’s face it though, who watched the sequel or read the novels? Not a lot of people. 

… 

 

Minimalism and security.

Minimalism helps. It always does. It’s clean, cool, beautiful and relaxing. Oh and it allows for security in software. Every single element in an application, every single feature, every program in an operating system could open doors for attackers to get in through.

The recently discovered Mac malware Eleanor, which opens a backdoor, works by exploiting a vulnerability in the MacUpdate application.

iPhone jail-breaking applications, not that I have anything against them, make use of similar vulnerabilities. The original JailbreakMe exploited a vulnerability in Safari in iOS 1.1.1, while the second version used a vulnerability in the PDF reader.

I do realize that it looks like I am suggesting that Safari or PDF readers or updating apps should not exist, but what I am actually suggesting is that the more an app grows, the greater the chances for an attacker to get in. We can always, at the very least, keep stuff simple. For example, smartphones could have less pre-installed bloatware? Samsung could stop shipping their devices with apps like “Papergarden” or “Flipboard” or “Samsung Apps”  installed by default?

 

Progresive Web Apps

You are using a computing device, be it a smartphone, a tablet, a desktop computer. It’s new, shiny, with little or no applications installed, apart from the bloatware that the manufacturer could have generously shipped with it. You fire up Facebook in a web browser, like a couple of pictures, post a status, have a small chat with a friend, and then after a while, you close the tab and lock your phone. After a while you do it again, and this time, you spend a whole hour scrolling through the news feed, and then once again you close the tab, and lock your device.

Now while it’s locked, and still connected, your device makes a decision. Assuming that you like Facebook, it adds a Facebook icon to your homescreen, or your app-drawer, for easy access to facebook.com. So the next time you unlock your iPhone, you simply tap on that icon, and it opens facebook.com in your default web browser. You love it.. It’s just a simple link, but it already feels great, and it could be better. Soon enough, after another day’s usage of the site, you notice that tapping the app icon no longer opens a browser window with facebook.com. Instead, you get a window solely running Facebook like it’s a standalone native application for your operating-system. …