I've done a lot of Flash work and a lot of HTML/JS/CSS, and there is definitely some misinformation in this thread.
jQuery for one is not as great as it is touted it be, it's useful for things, but it's not the be-all-end-all of HTML development. It makes it easier to do the following cross browser: - Query the DOM - Animate elements - AJAX - Event listeners It does some other stuff, but that's the gist of it. Usually, if you just use jQuery, your application is going to be a mess. JavaScript is a very powerful language, ActionScript 2 is an implementation of JavaScript. AS3 is an implementation of the abandoned ECMAScript 4. Switching from AS3 to JavaScript/HTML requires a bit of a paradigm shift, but it's really not that much different (taking into account the current capabilities of HTML5/JS/CSS). Instead of Sprites you have divs, yeah there are a few more semantics, especially when getting into HTML5 but it's very straightforward, an <h1> represents a header, <img> represents an image and so on. The biggest shift is from Classical Inheritance to Prototypical Inheritance, but the key thing to note is that there is still inheritance. Prototypical inheritance is definitely more powerful than Classical Inheritance when used right. Anyway, coming from a guy who's done a lot of both, HTML5/JS/CSS can be quite fun to work with, provided you have the right toolsets and mindset. I put together a JS library for Classical Inheritance in JS btw (heavily influenced by AS3), you can find it here: https://github.com/gigafied/minion Might help some of you guys out trying to do stuff in the HTML/JS world. On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Ktu <[email protected]>wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Karl DeSaulniers <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > @Ktu > > I see what your saying.. I agree. > > The technology is out there for HTML to get a complete face-lift if you > > will. > > If not a whole new write-up. And from this response, I understand your > > black box now. > > Sry if any disconnect. I guess in my pursuit to make what was available > to > > me work > > I didn't worry about if that structure would or could change. > > > i love control. i like being in control so this is why i have an issue with > black boxes. i still believe that black boxes are inhibitors to progress > > > > > I don't see why it couldn't be done, and to add to that, browsers could > > use a rewrite as well. 0.รต > > > > ..but then I guess some would argue that the <canvas> tag is what your > > talking about. > > But that too is a black box IMO and I am sure yours as well. Correct me if > > I am wrong. > > > you are not wrong. in my opinion the canvas tag is another black box that > allows for a different (and in some ways lower level) functionality. its > nice that this black box is very abstract so you can accomplish more within > it. this abstract layer is similar to flash. i mean, grant skinner created > a framework that emulates the flash display architecture when using the > canvas tag. this tag both helps and hurts my case. > > > > > Can you give an example of what your talking about.. or > > the idea behind a black-less box?? :) > > > not sure if i understand your question now, but it has sparked a thought > that seems to connect things together for me, and might give insight as to > why i think about this. > > black boxes are useful. they can really make things easier sometimes. as it > seams, we keep adding more and more black boxes to boxes to make things > easier. this is fine and good until we start trying to use the black boxes > the way they were not intended. it would be nicer if i could change the way > that box worked, but i cannot. > > take for example this correlation about black boxes. > > (excuse my poor html knowledge) > I want a scrollable block of content in my html page that only takes up > part of the screen. > i create a <div> give it size and tell it overflow = hidden (?) and that it > should use a scrollbar (somehow?) > > if i did that in flash > create a sprite > set scrollRect and give content > either use scrollbar components from some framework or write my own > > if i did that in C++ > i could, go on forever making all the things! > or utilize a bunch of libraries to make it almost as simple (relatively > please) as the html. > > > the more black boxes we have the less control we have. in my own work, i > create white boxes (black boxes i have source code to, do they have a > proper name?). i have created the building blocks to serve the common > tasks. i wonder at people who spend any time working on 'browser > compatibility'. the example above has shown me that i like boxes, but not > black ones, and if there is anything i can do, it will never be black. my > example above shows how boxes are helpful, but i think i really do not like > the closed aspect of it. > > my head now reeling with new off topic thoughts i will stop. what started > as an emotional response to my own past experiences (first thread) has > turned into yet another dive into the confused search for new information. > > > p.s. i prefer flash because i have more control than html, i got stuck with > flash because it is the easiest way to make something pretty. > > > > > > Sounds like a good thread if nothing else.. > > > > Best, > > Karl > > > > PS: I am still +1 on a flash-based browser with DOM to FllashObj > > converters built in. > > Sounds like a great C++ project. > > > > :)) > > > > ** I may be a dreamer, but I'm not the only one... > > ** J.L. > > > > > > On Jan 13, 2012, at 4:04 PM, Ktu wrote: > > > > if i am not mistaken, jQuery is a framework that makes working with html > >> tags easier. but you are still stuck with using those tags. > >> > >> its not a matter of 'can you do it with this language', its a matter of > >> 'what control do i have'. i have always felt that as a developer, you > have > >> less control over how html works, than how flash works. there are > greater > >> and deeper black boxes in html. > >> > >> i just don't see why people like working in html at all. they took a > >> markup > >> language, designed to be static and Frankenstein-ed it with javascript > and > >> css to compensate where they should have attempted to create something > >> new. > >> > >> > >> i don't think the future is bleak at all either. in fact, i think that > >> flash might end up being used more and more for tools, education, and > >> visualization. but that's what i am using it for and i am a bit out of > >> touch with what everyone else is doing. > >> > >> are there ways that i could effectively create my own 'tag' with its own > >> attributes and events and use that in lieu of a natvie html tag? > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Karl DeSaulniers <[email protected] > >> >wrote: > >> > >> One word.. jQuery. > >>> > >>> In my option it is the next best thing to flash. > >>> I have been able to recreate most, if not all of my flash pieces with > it. > >>> > >>> <body> is your canvas. (NOT a reference to HTML5 BTW, think artist > canvas > >>> =) > >>> <DIV> is your friend. Call it your MovieClip. > >>> <p> is a helper when layout has text. > >>> if your daring enough to learn the proper way to use it, > >>> <table>, <tr> and the good ol <td> can make a sound foundation. > >>> (Not the going consensus though, I just know how to use them properly. > >>> most people like to use a table-less design and thats just <DIV>s > galore > >>> with CSS.) > >>> > >>> jQuery can create any element you want on the fly (Not sure about the > >>> HTML > >>> tag though, > >>> never tried. I use php to create any new HTML) and manipulate it (in > some > >>> cases) > >>> better than flash and an MC. jQuery has not been a memory hoooooogggg > >>> like > >>> flash was for me > >>> and like I said, I have recreated most of what I did with flash. > >>> > >>> Just a very small run-down an there is A LOT more I have not touched on > >>> that you can utilize. > >>> The future is not so bleak, IMO. > >>> > >>> I just assume let Adobe burry Flash if this is the effort they would > put > >>> towards it. > >>> I learned Flash much like you. I hated the limitations of HTML. > >>> Saw flash and asked, why can't HTML do this stuff?? > >>> Well now it can, or I should say, it kind-of always could, > >>> > >>> I just didn't know Javascript and CSS... > >>> > >>> HTH, > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Karl > >>> > >>> PS: Flash still is my love, but she's left me to figure out who she > is. I > >>> wait with baited breath... > >>> > >>> On Jan 13, 2012, at 12:43 PM, Ktu wrote: > >>> > >>> *preamble:* > >>> > >>>> > >>>> a recent thread got me thinking about my educational experience, and > >>>> why i > >>>> love flash so much. i started html, hated it, then tried flash, all in > >>>> high > >>>> school. after high school i eventually went to a college for two > >>>> semesters > >>>> and learned some c++ and java (java was easier, but understanding the > >>>> power > >>>> of c++ was cool). > >>>> > >>>> i realized i didn't like html because you couldn't do anything with > it. > >>>> it > >>>> was just presentation. i wanted to do logic. flash, allowed me to do > >>>> logic. > >>>> when i learned html javascript was brand new and my high school > teacher > >>>> knew nothing of it (barely knew anything of anything). so what flash > >>>> allowed me was a place to immediately make things happen (started just > >>>> when > >>>> as2 came out). > >>>> > >>>> *problem:* > >>>> > >>>> even after you include css, dynamic css, and javascript to html you > >>>> still > >>>> have this one problem which is the whole reason i hate html. the > >>>> presentation layer is black boxed. i think there are two elements to > >>>> that > >>>> which need addressing; one being the browser wars, the other being the > >>>> (imho) new powers of javascript and the html/css standards. > >>>> > >>>> each tag we use in html is a black box. i can't change the way it > >>>> behaves. > >>>> worse yet, each browser (and os) represent things differently. right > off > >>>> the bat its hard to make a single experience. but these black boxes > make > >>>> innovation harder. > >>>> > >>>> ok, so with javascript and such you could build your own 'scroll bar' > >>>> and > >>>> 'scrolling content', but you are still confined within the black boxes > >>>> you > >>>> are given, and merely using them in a way they weren't initially > >>>> designed > >>>> for. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> how is it that anyone enjoys working in an environment where their ui > is > >>>> so > >>>> locked down? (or is it?) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> *haters:* > >>>> > >>>> to make comment on flash's ui black box: > >>>> yes, their display architecture is a black box and we must conform to > >>>> that. > >>>> i get that, but the black box in flash ui is more of a foundation to a > >>>> house that we can't touch. where as i see html as being pre built > rooms > >>>> that we can stitch together. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> *what's up:* > >>>> > >>>> i have not touched html in years; i am biased; i am open minded, am i > >>>> missing something about html? have they added 'lower level' tags that > >>>> act > >>>> more like a foundation? > >>>> can javascript 'create' new html tags? > >>>> > >>>> with the way things are going, i think the global web language will > >>>> eventually need to have fewer black boxes in the ui (if that's not the > >>>> case > >>>> today) > >>>> > >>>> ...,? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Ktu; > >>>> > >>>> The information contained in this message may or may not be privileged > >>>> and/or confidential. If you are NOT the intended recipient, > >>>> congratulations, you got mail! > >>>> ______________________________****_________________ > >>>> Flashcoders mailing list > >>>> [email protected].****com <Flashcoders@chattyfig.** > >>>> figleaf.com <[email protected]>> > >>>> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/****mailman/listinfo/flashcoders< > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/**mailman/listinfo/flashcoders> > >>>> <**http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/**mailman/listinfo/flashcoders< > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders> > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Karl DeSaulniers > >>> Design Drumm > >>> http://designdrumm.com > >>> > >>> ______________________________****_________________ > >>> Flashcoders mailing list > >>> [email protected].****com <Flashcoders@chattyfig.** > >>> figleaf.com <[email protected]>> > >>> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/****mailman/listinfo/flashcoders< > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/**mailman/listinfo/flashcoders> > >>> <**http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/**mailman/listinfo/flashcoders< > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Ktu; > >> > >> The information contained in this message may or may not be privileged > >> and/or confidential. If you are NOT the intended recipient, > >> congratulations, you got mail! > >> ______________________________**_________________ > >> Flashcoders mailing list > >> [email protected].**com <[email protected]> > >> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/**mailman/listinfo/flashcoders< > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders> > >> > > > > Karl DeSaulniers > > Design Drumm > > http://designdrumm.com > > > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > > Flashcoders mailing list > > [email protected].**com <[email protected]> > > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/**mailman/listinfo/flashcoders< > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders> > > > > > > -- > Ktu; > > The information contained in this message may or may not be privileged > and/or confidential. If you are NOT the intended recipient, > congratulations, you got mail! > _______________________________________________ > Flashcoders mailing list > [email protected] > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > _______________________________________________ Flashcoders mailing list [email protected] http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
