1. It's not a desktop application if it needs a network and server, hence the term 'desktop' application. You can indeed access CFCs from Flash, but exactly how does that get around needing HTML to make an API call to the browser to get local disk access? (Thanks for pointing that out Barney) You ultra futuristic flash application still needs a browser and HTML.
Jaye's response >> Since you can open a word or PDF in your web-browser. Are those files a part of a desktop application or the web? It's obvious both. They can be seen and accessed where ever you like that is the beauty of those applications and the files they create. SWF's are capable of doing the same (particularly as JD mentioned.. as an executable). No browser is actually required. FlashMX is a power house of options. 2. I know java Mr. Zero, and flash is no java. It's a completely different beast all together. As for cd-roms, why wouldn't I want to use something more powerful, like Director? Additionally Flash can't access outside APIs. I can't use a java class in flash, nor could I access outlook on my PDA to check my calendar. Jaye's response >> You are right. Flash is much more ubiquitous, far faster, fewer lines of code, has the advantages of components, CFC's and much, much more. If you would like to use DirectorMX, I think that's cool too, if that's your flavor (Director will cause you to innovate as well). Not the same level of ubiquity as flash. In terms of talking to API's, I am not so sure about that one. Additionally you might be able to talk to a JAVA class via Flash JAVA remoting, just like there is a .NET remoting to allow that access. Check the Macromedia website for more info. As for the PDA and other stuff, talk to MESH. He might have other thoughts on that one. I have seen some pretty cool stuff he has done. 3. I'm not bashing Flash at all. I've been using it for 3 years now, and Flash MX is awesome. But I'm also not going to claim that Flash is appropriate for every application in every instance. It is unmatched in RIA, but don't forget the definition. Rich _Internet_ Application. Jaye's Response >> No flash is not THE answer, it's just an answer that I can do some handy, dandy things with. Rich internet application does not say that it has to live on a website. Your application can live on a desktop, periodically accessing the web, or on a PDA. I'm not seeing problems. I'm seeing the limitations and being realistic. I'm giving reasons for my criticism and I'm trying to understand your side of the argument. Jaye's Response >> Show me one technology (including the human body) that is not limited. It's all evolution. This is about taking the existing material and making the best of it and with it. Nothing is perfect, you can rip anything apart. Jaye, you say you are down with .NET, so you are obviously not just privy to MM. Don't you think MS will come out with a competitor to Flash. Jaye's response >> MM has something going for it called Market Penetration (partly thanks to MS by them accepting Flash as the defacto standard and embedding it in their own web-browser as well as Netscape, and Opera). On top of they, they could have better penetration than Microsoft because they are also on Mac and Linux systems as well. They are not limited to one platform. Finally we have a totally dope developer community (which I am sure MS envy's greatly). I mean if it is the future, they'd be foolish not to. But if they did, then Flash might not be the future. So you can may be CF programmer and Multimedia, but you should also remember business. After all, it's probably second in importance of an emerging technology. Jaye's response >> That is a philosophical argument. I will say, MM is like a great basketball team, their bench is deep and because of that they are not going to be going away any time soon. If you look at MM's evolution it's rock solid. Finally my skill set is tight. I like the fact that I work with a great Uncertified Senior Cold Fusion Developer (Tony Weeg), have the extended support of CF-Talk and .NET platform Developers. The fact that I constantly exposed to current and future technologies keeps me learning. I take responsibility for my own professional development. Before we left the office today, we where talking about code length and built in functionality. CF still crushes .NET in terms of being a RAD tool. Namaste' -//- Jaye Morris, Multimedia Developer -//- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.navtrak.net -//- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.jayezero.com -----Original Message----- From: Jaye Morris - jayeZERO.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 5:11 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.Com (The new site?) 1. You can make a call from flash to a cfc, accessing the cf_file function and upload a file that way. FlashMX and CFMX are built for intergraction. Additionally you can do some very cool server side scripting. 2. What about the concept of the web on your desktop, everywhere you are. In additionl, look at what intel just released in their NEW chip. Not only low battery usage, mega horsepower but built in wireless 802.11b connectivity. Flash is JAVA realized. Write your application once and not only have it to the web, but interactive cd-rom, pda's and other appliances. 3. It seems easy for you (and others) to unendingly bash Flash. It is really a beautiful thing. Perhaps instead of downing it all the time, ask why and how. You appear in a specific paradigmn, looking only in one direction. I am a CF developer but also Multimedia. I am looking in all directions. CF, .NET, Flash, Remoting, Javascript, CSS, HTML, etc... Is the glass 1/2 empty or 1/2 full. I don't dislike you or anybody else, but I do find some of the postions being taken to be illogical or uninformed. It's too easy to dump on FlashMX and not fully understand how to bring the resources together and create great applications. That why people come to us and not the 12 yo kid. We are professionals. The non-professional see's only problems. The professional only see's solutions. That's why my clients pay me what they pay me. -//- Jaye -----Original Message----- From: Adrocknaphobia Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 4:36 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.Com (The new site?) Jaye do you have the "I'm smarter than you, so you are wrong" argument ready for cut and paste? Seriously Zero, what did I say that was so idiotic? Could you explain to me why it's so idiotic so that I could possibly learn something? You can't blame me for being stupid, if you aren't willing to enlighten me. Yes you can manipulate files in conjunction with CFMX, but as I said, Flash won't replace your traditional desktop app, because it currently needs the server for its power. Hence, it isn't a desktop application. Out side of claiming you are smarter than I, what is your point? Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division -----Original Message----- From: Jaye Morris - jayeZERO.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 3:50 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.Com (The new site?) I normally try to contain myself, but sometimes people can say really idiotic things. On moving data and files etc... there are ways to get it done in conjunction with cfmx, but you appear to be a one dimensional thinker. You are out of your depth. As for your theory for the 30 second download, ask that of Joshua Davis and his dreamless.org. You can try to resist the future if you will, but the reality is that it's coming right for you. Deal with it and as we say in our office, get over yourself. -//- jaye morris I've stopped 19,329 spam messages. You can too! Get your free, safe spam protection at http://www.cloudmark.com/spamnetsig/ -----Original Message----- From: Adrocknaphobia Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 3:33 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.Com (The new site?) Yeah. I gotta disagree on the flash replacing traditional desktop apps. Big draw back of flash is the lacking ability of local file manipulation. Hence there is no way to upload a file via flash. So even in the most advanced RIA, if any client files are needed, you have to go back to HTML. It would be really nice to have one single language that could be used for everything from desktop apps to server side scripting. It was the goal of Java, but I think it will be accomplished by MS and their CRL approach. Flash isn't even in the realm of comparison imho. As for long load times, are we just going to disregard the studies proving that if I site doest load fast, people don't view it? I agree it's impatient and hard to believe people won't wait 30 seconds, but it's unfortunately true. By the way, if MMs site used to take 30s to load on my universities connection, I'd hate to see how long it took on 56k. Thankfully MM recognized the feedback (bitching) from our community and removed half the flash content from the site. Now it's a much more reasonable speed. If they want to move it back to a complete flash solution it's probably best to do it slowly over the course of a few years, not immediately just because they can. On the contrary, we need to be as critical as possible. Unlike HTML and other controlling technologies on the web, this one is under the sole control of one company. Not the WC3. Outside of Lingo, Macromedia didn't touch any sort of programming until about 2-3 years ago with actionScript, and they bought their server side languages. So I think it's very important and rightly so to be critical as they have never done anything like this in the past. Luckily they do seem to listen to developers, cause after all it comes down to us, whether a technology will be a success. As long as Macromedia forges new territory, expect to hear me bitching about it deficiencies. You can't expect us all to just have blind faith. Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division -----Original Message----- From: Joshua Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 1:55 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.Com (The new site?) This is a snippet of a response to the ZDNet article about Macromedia.com, I thought I'd pass it along here as well ... <RANT> ... with RIA applications you will inherently have a longer load time because you're loading the entire application at once. With traditional web applications you get page-by-page loads which is faster initially, but overall I would imagine you sit and wait longer for traditional HTML pages when all is said and done. Think about it - 35 seconds to load an HTML page is slow, but to load 50 HTML pages it's pretty fast. That's what RIAs give you, the equivalent of an entire application in one page load. Most users don't complain about Microsoft Outlook taking 30 seconds to load, it's total lack of accessibility features and it's generally sluggish behavior when doing searches, etc. but when a web application doesn't load in 6 seconds and the link to the second version of the site in HTML doesn't leap out and grab your attention then everyone is up in arms. We're all accustomed to looking at application splash screens while waiting for desktop applications to load, why is it so outrageous for a web application to do the same? You have to realize, what Macromedia is doing is laying the groundwork for a whole new way to create applications, you can't expect that type of technology to be 100% from day 1. Eventually web applications will behave almost identically to desktop applications and in most cases will even replace them. I would hate to think that the future of software would be based on HTML. Flash, server-side processing and RIAs are the future of not only the web, but software as we know it. We need to be helpful and supportive of this process instead of being so critical. With support and positive feedback this process can mature and grow, Macromedia took their feedback and improved their product, that speaks volumes about their commitment to the future and to their developers. </RANT> Joshua Miller Head Programmer / IT Manager Garrison Enterprises Inc. www.garrisonenterprises.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] (704) 569-9044 ext. 254 ************************************************************************ ************* Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender states them to be the views of Garrison Enterprises Inc. This e-mail is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and contains information that is private and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please delete it immediately and advise us by return e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ************************************************************************ ************* -----Original Message----- From: Adrocknaphobia Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 11:38 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Macromedia.Com (The new site?) Ouch. ZDNet wasn't to kind about macromedia.com. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2131698,00.html Again, the new version is much better and I hope ZDNet writes a follow-up article on how Macromedia has graciously responded to all the criticism. But I do with Macromedia would stop touting this argument: "When you move from an HTML world into a much richer desktop-oriented world, that's a big change, and people just have difficulty with change," he said. "Any time you change a Web site, there's an initial week or so where people don't feel comfortable yet and you hear a lot of feedback." It's bullshit. If there is one thing that can be said about web developers, is that we are accustomed to change. From the tools we use to the technology, everything changes constantly. We're just critical of the wrong types of change, not change itself. Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division -----Original Message----- From: Pablo Varando [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 6:53 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Macromedia.Com (The new site?) Well, Macromedia has changed the site with the feedback they received from the community. http://www.macromedia.com Like it better? Worse? They also released a report about what they learned (good and bad) from the first week of the new site. http://www.macromedia.com/special/progress_report/ (This is really interesting... you should read it..) Pablo ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
