I think you are blurring the boundaries between networked applications and web applications.
Web applications run in a web browser and ideally use web standards to make their content 100% interoperable on different devices and platforms. That's a foundational idea of the web, after all. Networked applications can be written for any device or platform you want to support, and can use whatever protocol they like to communicate over the network. Flash/AIR will continue to be a good way to develop applications that can run on multiple platforms and devices but the fact that they are delivered through a web browser has always been a bit of a hack, insofar as Flash provided functionality that web browsers lacked and so was used to add missing features but that it also deviated from what the web is supposed to be about. They really are more like networked applications that happen to be wrapped in html, than web applications. I see this debate as a healthy one about re-establishing what the web needs to be able to do, and the benefits of standards. I also think it's worth re-evaluating the tools we use and the outcomes we want and how best to get there. There are many web apps out there today that use modern web technologies to do things that you used to need Flash for. That's a good thing as it leads to better interoperable on different devices and platforms. That doesn't mean there isn't a place for different technologies, like Flash, to deliver other types of applications on specific platforms or devices, but we should certainly start to reevaluate whether Flash really == Web Applications. Guy On 01/05/2010, at 12:38 PM, Oleg Sivokon wrote: > > Guy Morton > > Oh, I haven't seen your previous reply. Sorry. > AS3 and h.246 codec support were available in 2005... just so you know. > Also, there's a free version of Visual Studio (which I like and use a lot, > and the same way you can say that MS development tools are free), however, > this wasn't my point - Apple profits from selling their OS / software - the > more developers see it profitable to develop against their API, the more it > will pay back to Apple because it will escalate like this: you need software > - you need the OS to run it, you get the OS, you find out there's more > software you want and so on. This is good for Apple, but is bad for me > personally - I don't like their technology (I'm a long time Mac user, but > long time ago - I've used to work on G3-G4 computers). What their success > will mean for me is that I would rather have to adapt to the language that I > don't like, or I will have less job opportunities in the language I do like. > For my manager that would mean that if the company wants to support multiple > platforms they would need to hire more personal, buy more software (btw, > since when Mac OS became a freeware?). Apple doesn't care about that (not > that others care a lot, but that's not the point). > > Why do I think that HTML and JavaScript are dead for web application (if your > mail doesn't support HTML formating, web application is in > <strong></strong>). This is because it is: > - compiled in browser (nothing you can do with it, the JavaScript not > compiled in browser is ActionScript, well, at least the version implemented > by Mozilla). > - inefficient rendering model. It is not because of the implementation, it is > engraved in the design, HTML / SVG are bad for describing graphics, HTML is > for text. Using HTML to make graphic content is similar to making typography > in MSWord, or book illustration in Excell ( > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YG_WWZYqUs ) I find it awesome btw :) > - Absolutely no tools for basic optimizations, everything in the language is > reflection -> zillions of loops where you could use references or pointers... > JavaScript performs many orders of magnitude worse than native code, and it > is not only because of how it is implemented, it is the "feature" of the > language, it can never work even close to what your computer may do. > > The side effects, which are not inherent to the technology, but also > associated with it are these: most of the JavaScript code I've seen so far is > a very low grade code, be it JQuery, Prototype and so on - it's lame... :) It > looks even worse then other mature now languages looked like back in 90-s... > 90% of all HTML pages found on the web don't validate in the free validators > provided by Mozilla and W3C. They are bad software! > All current browsers except FireFox are running JavaScript 1.5 (or somewhat > compatible JScript 5.5) version - do you know when this standard was > established? It is even funny to think about those tools as real programming > tools. It is only because of the browsers war that this technology still > survives, it should've been dead decades ago and take it's proper place next > to Turbo Basic in the computer science museum :) The high demand and no > alternative is what is keeping it alive. The technology is crap, it's amazing > how one can be so blind to not see that. > > I am not a Flash fan, actually, I'm waiting for NaCl to get strength. My > greatest ambition was to design an on-line video editor. It didn't quite work > in Flash, but, if I think about JavaScript... oh well... :) What I mean is - > web applications should be applications, JavaScript is a tool to script an > application, but it's not a tool for writing one. > Or, just to give you another example - World of Warcraft :) It is a web > application if you want! It connects to the internet and it uses the same > computer, that your browser does! Would you think of making that in HTML5 and > JavaScript? Why do you think it's ridiculous? It's not, it's basically the > same technology! :) And that's where internet is heading to - applications, > not pages. > > Regarding what you say about "those tools": well, you see, most developers > are unaware of them. It may never appear to the AS3 people how much they are > missing when they don't have generics, templates, inlining and so on. While, > I think that, this is mutually dependent - if you have smarter developer in > your community, it is more likely to make better products - better products > will make joining the community more attractive for others - you will get > better developers on your side. As a side effect, the community members may > contribute to the development of the technology as a whole. > > Sorry for the flame, and if I made you tired reading this. I really hope you > or anyone reading this doesn't take this as a personal offence. After all > it's a metal box and the small lights flushing inside of it :) > > PS. In my previous post there was a mistake: > > He never says that h.264 codec is proprietary, but after reading what he says > you may think it is. > Should read: > He never says that h.264 codec is proprietary, but after reading what he says > you may think it is not. (however, it is not OSS) > >
