Objectively better from a development standpoint. * Consumers*
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:11 PM, imagene...@gmail.com <imagene...@gmail.com>wrote: > Javascript is not a better platform for applications or games. Look at > EA's Command and Conquer online game. It's performance is horrible and it's > just a turn based game. > > A lot of WEB developers have been forced to learn javascript because it's > a standard and you're pigeonholed into it. They are screaming they want > better UI frameworks and continued development because everyone knows how > awful coding in mishmash of html/javascript is. There is a very vocal > community of WEB designers who are screaming for a standardized Javascript > display list framework. Give it about 5 years and they'll probably start > screaming Javascript is dead and everyone should code for Native Client. > > Unless internet consumer's have a massive aversion to Flash games which I > don't think they do, I don't understand why Adobe is second guessing > itself. Convincing Flash developers, that Javascript is a *better*runtime > isn't going to work I don't think. > > Consumer internet application are not written in Flash. Flash is mainly > used for games and internal applications with Flex. Saying Javascript is > sometimes the better choice, it sounds like Javascript is a better choice > for either games or internal RIAs. Neither of which is true. Yah, > Javascript is the better choice if you're making a consumer internet > applications where users don't want to load Flash for their social > networking fix. At this point, there is no good free Javascript UI > framework. There is Kendo UI, JQuery UI and Sencha. Only JQuery is free. > None of them are as comprehensive as Flex. They don't have containers for > one thing. Even if they were as comprehensive, there isn't any good reason > to write something in Javascript. The necessary APIs for rich UI's are > finite. These equivalent API's are found in Java Swing, Windows UI APIs, > Linux UI APIs. The point is that they are finite, there aren't any magical > new developments that Javascript will bring. UI APIs are stable. The Flex > API is more or less complete. A Javascript equivalent will not be much > better. > > Fundamentally the only scary part of Adobe's announcements is that they > sound like: > We'll try to monetize Flash > If it doesn't work than we can't tell you what's going to happen. We can't > tell you we'll open source it. We might just stop developing the API. We > might take more aggressive steps to monetize it. We might end it > permanently. I think this is what some flash developers are hearing. In > reality though, Flash will obviously not be discontinued. Look at > Shockwave, it has been in zombie mode for years. > > Then again, there is the "lure" of javascript. We all know, pretty soon,. > a developer will release a great Javascript game that will make a ton of > money and become super popular and than it might fuel momentum in > Javascript. Okay I'll give you that. > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Mike Chambers <mcham...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> Yep. Agreed. >> >> We had announced last year that we planned to monetize alchemy, and then >> announced earlier this year that as part of that we would be removing the >> domainMemory API. >> >> Based on community feedback we changed those plans so that domainMemory >> is still available (and officially supported), and that it would only be a >> premium feature when used in conjunction with Stage3D. >> >> mike chambers >> >> m...@adobe.com >> >> On Apr 17, 2012, at 1:02 PM, Tink wrote: >> >> > >> > On 17 Apr 2012, at 20:37, Mike Chambers wrote: >> > >> > >> > IMO if you want to gain back trust a credibility with developers you >> still need to be clearer and more open about your plans. It should have >> been made plain and clear that some of these new features would come at a >> cost. >> > >> > Tink >> >> >
