Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
Several important differences between Screenweaver HX and Apollo :
- size : SWHX takes 450 KB. Apollo is expected to be in the 5-9 MB range
Sure, but Apollo is a global runtime isn't it?
- extensibility : SWHX is extensible with custom-made C libraries.
Apollo is not
How does that work with cross platform applications?
- open source : SWHX is open source. If you get a bug, simply report it
and it should be fixed in terms of days. If it's critical for you,
you'll not have to wait the next big release since you can recompile the
sources.
With respect, were I to present a paying client with a choice between a
platform developed by a known entity and one developed by a couple of
guys in their spare time, 9/10 they're going to pick the former.
Fortunately the Screenweaver name has gained awareness and is closing
that gap slowly.
- API : Apollo 1.0 does not have databases planned. From SWHX you can
already access a big number of haXe APIs, including SQLite an MySQL
databases.
The edges start to blur for me here.. I can't think of many scenarios
where I'd write an application these days that accessed a database
directly. SQLite is an advantage, especially for offline support, but
aside from that I'll stick to a service architecture.
I don't know how we got into this, because I think SWHX is a great idea
with oodles of potential, it's just not right for me in the long run ;-)
_______________________________________________
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
