Thoughts on Flash
-
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
What CSS gives me is the ability to change the layout just by changing a CSS file
The idea is good - they just screwed the implementation badly.
There might be some issues here and there but compared to XAML in its current form, I will prefer CSS any day.
-
That's intriguing. So you're saying MonoTouch is not a cross-compiler? It generates object-code? (excuse my ignorance, I haven't looked into this). But I thought the Ipod/Iphone/Ipad chip was proprietary (we'll I have heard it said that was really a beefed-up ARM design). I thought the specs of this chip were never released, so how does Mono generate code for it (If it's not a CLI interpreter, but I thought interpreters were also banned cfr:java?)
MonoTouch C# code get converted to Objective-C code which links with mono touch library to generated the executable. Flash CS5 for iPhone Flash Code and Flash runtime gets combined into a application package. At runtime, the flash runtime runs the flash code.
-
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
They were pushing it in the version 1.0 of iPhone till everyone complained and they caved in and exposed the native SDK.
Yup. And now it's the ghetto where Google Voice lives, eh? :rolleyes: I hate Flash. I will not be sad to see it die. But it's a shame that the death-blow will come from an even more closed platform.
Shog9 wrote:
Yup. And now it's the ghetto where Google Voice lives, eh?
Yes and it works amazingly well. In my opinion lot of apps on the App store can just be written as web applications.
-
MonoTouch C# code get converted to Objective-C code which links with mono touch library to generated the executable. Flash CS5 for iPhone Flash Code and Flash runtime gets combined into a application package. At runtime, the flash runtime runs the flash code.
I see, so cross compilers are allowed the (the mono thing), but flash is really partially interpreted, and so breaks the license agreement. Thanks!
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The point was to have developers not be subject to 3rd party adoption of new stuff.
I sorry, but this argument that SteveJ keeps putting across is complete garbage. Not every developer wants to take advantage of every cutting edge platform feature. Sometimes I'm more interested in cross platform development. If I'm making an application I might want it to run in several different places. The point is that the choice should be up to me as a developer, not Apple or Steve. If I want to use a framework that is cross platform, that caters to the "lowest common denominator" then that is my choice. What Apple have done is removed the choice and made the only option to write my application multiple times. Yes, some developers will choose to code against the raw APIs, because they want cutting edge features. It's the same in Windows. If you want access to the latest APIs for the latest platform you will probably have to go to C++ and COM API's. .Net tends to lag behind. The fact is that what Apple should have done was put out a statement encouraging developers to developer directly for the IPhone without a framework and list all their reasons why. If developers agreed they would have done what Apple asked, purely for the right reasons. Some wouldn't have, but some might have had very good reasons for using a framework. Instead, they haven't even tried to put their argument across in a open and frank manor, they've just thrown their toys out the pram and demanded that everyone do it their way or no way. Steve's argument that they want to protect the platform and developers is rubbish, they just want to encourage lock in to their platform. They want to discourage cross platform apps.
Simon
Simon P Stevens wrote:
The point is that the choice should be up to me as a developer, not Apple or Steve.
Oh! you do have a choice, do not develop for that platform.
-
There might be some issues here and there but compared to XAML in its current form, I will prefer CSS any day.
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
some issues
Only one issue: it is fundamentally broken. Using hacks like margin-left is a horrible way to define columns. Things like fonts and colors, sure, but they really screwed with the layout. Compare it with XAML:
<Grid ShowGridLines="True">
<Grid.ColumnDefinitions>
<ColumnDefinition Width="146" />
<ColumnDefinition Width="146" />
</Grid.ColumnDefinitions>
<Grid.RowDefinitions>
<RowDefinition Height="135" />
<RowDefinition Height="135" />
</Grid.RowDefinitions>
< /Grid > -
I fully agree with what Steve says about how openness and standards are important, if not critical. I've said similar myself before and I'm fully in support of not-supporting flash. Unfortunately with Apple's decision only a few weeks ago to change their AppStore licensing agreement to require the use of Apple's propriety toolset (and forbidding anything 3rd party like MonoTouch) they are just as bad, if not worse than Adobe. What a hypocrite. Shut up Steve, fix your own company's business practises before you criticize others. Personally I will never buy an apple product until they change their practises and treat developers with respect.
Simon
Look below, apparently Monotouch is allowed. The things not allowed are things which cheat and aren't compiled into Objective C. Adobe tried to get flash on the iPhone by making a sloppy hack. They stopped that without stopping people from writing code and porting code to be native.
-
Thoughts on Flash[^] by Steve Jobs Love him or hate him but IMHO he's got this one right. Thoughts?
-
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
some issues
Only one issue: it is fundamentally broken. Using hacks like margin-left is a horrible way to define columns. Things like fonts and colors, sure, but they really screwed with the layout. Compare it with XAML:
<Grid ShowGridLines="True">
<Grid.ColumnDefinitions>
<ColumnDefinition Width="146" />
<ColumnDefinition Width="146" />
</Grid.ColumnDefinitions>
<Grid.RowDefinitions>
<RowDefinition Height="135" />
<RowDefinition Height="135" />
</Grid.RowDefinitions>
< /Grid >Let's analyze it: 1. With your XAML code the only way to modify the layout is to rewrite the markup. If you want something similar in HTML, you can use tables: <table> <col width="146" /> <col style="width:146px" /> <tr height="135"> ... </tr> <tr style="height:146px"> ... </tr> </table> The only reason to use CSS layouts, is flexibility (which you don't have with XAML layouts without major changes). For instance in my article: Building a Web Message Board using Visual Studio 2008, Part I - The Basic Message Board[^]. I can have 3 different layouts by just changing the CSS file: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/aspnet/VS2008MessageBoard1/SiteWithOutlookTheme.JPG[^] http://www.codeproject.com/KB/aspnet/VS2008Messageboard1/SiteWithFloatingTheme.JPG[^] http://www.codeproject.com/KB/aspnet/VS2008Messageboard1/MessageASPX.PNG[^].
-
Shog9 wrote:
Yup. And now it's the ghetto where Google Voice lives, eh?
Yes and it works amazingly well. In my opinion lot of apps on the App store can just be written as web applications.
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
Yes and it works amazingly well.
Apart from the whole, "can't access the contact list" part I'm sure. ;) Interestingly though, the GV web app also works quite well on my Pre. As do many fine mobile sites that have adapted to fit the iPhone. There's something to be said for letting a 3rd-party layer of software come between the platform and the developer...
-
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
Yes and it works amazingly well.
Apart from the whole, "can't access the contact list" part I'm sure. ;) Interestingly though, the GV web app also works quite well on my Pre. As do many fine mobile sites that have adapted to fit the iPhone. There's something to be said for letting a 3rd-party layer of software come between the platform and the developer...
Shog9 wrote:
"can't access the contact list
Oh! my contact list is already on Google and I use the Google's Activesync implementation to use Mail and Calendar to my phone as if they come from Exchange. So I guess I never really suffered from that. But I do get your point, if I had not used Google contacts on the phone too, it would have been different.
-
Shog9 wrote:
"can't access the contact list
Oh! my contact list is already on Google and I use the Google's Activesync implementation to use Mail and Calendar to my phone as if they come from Exchange. So I guess I never really suffered from that. But I do get your point, if I had not used Google contacts on the phone too, it would have been different.
-
Let's analyze it: 1. With your XAML code the only way to modify the layout is to rewrite the markup. If you want something similar in HTML, you can use tables: <table> <col width="146" /> <col style="width:146px" /> <tr height="135"> ... </tr> <tr style="height:146px"> ... </tr> </table> The only reason to use CSS layouts, is flexibility (which you don't have with XAML layouts without major changes). For instance in my article: Building a Web Message Board using Visual Studio 2008, Part I - The Basic Message Board[^]. I can have 3 different layouts by just changing the CSS file: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/aspnet/VS2008MessageBoard1/SiteWithOutlookTheme.JPG[^] http://www.codeproject.com/KB/aspnet/VS2008Messageboard1/SiteWithFloatingTheme.JPG[^] http://www.codeproject.com/KB/aspnet/VS2008Messageboard1/MessageASPX.PNG[^].
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
With your XAML code the only way to modify the layout is to rewrite the markup
But "markup" here does not mean content, unlike with HTML+CSS. XAML can be used to define layout and no content, just like CSS, only with much easier and more logical syntax. What is preventing me from using the same XAML to display various content? I just set the content with the code-behind.
-
Michel Godfroid wrote:
it looks like for the Windows Phone 7, we may see the same business model
Really !? :doh: I hope they have more sense than that. I haven't read much about the Win phones yet. I understand the recommended route is to develop silverlight apps for it?
Simon
-
Michel Godfroid wrote:
it looks like for the Windows Phone 7, we may see the same business model
Really !? :doh: I hope they have more sense than that. I haven't read much about the Win phones yet. I understand the recommended route is to develop silverlight apps for it?
Simon
Silverlight, yes but Silverlight does not expose any of the platform features. If you want to get at those, you'll need the XNA toolkit, or the game development kit, which I'm not even sure will exist on the phone. Look at the XBOX model:, sure you can get XNA, but you only distribute your app through the XBOX store, and the whole thing is DRM'ed. If you want to do some serious game development, you need a separate game developers license, which probably costs you a mortgage.
-
Thoughts on Flash[^] by Steve Jobs Love him or hate him but IMHO he's got this one right. Thoughts?
-
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
With your XAML code the only way to modify the layout is to rewrite the markup
But "markup" here does not mean content, unlike with HTML+CSS. XAML can be used to define layout and no content, just like CSS, only with much easier and more logical syntax. What is preventing me from using the same XAML to display various content? I just set the content with the code-behind.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
What is preventing me from using the same XAML to display various content? I just set the content with the code-behind.
If you only want templating, then HTML + JavaScript will do just fine. The HTML/CSS combo offers you additional separation, but you don't have to use it if you don't want to - just slap inline styles on each element (as Rama demonstrated) and be done with it. Heck, you can build the whole mess in "code behind" if that's how you roll...
-
Yes, like Microsoft. Large parts of the .net framework are provided open source. the CLR and C# are covered by ECMA standards. There is even an open source sample implementation of large parts of the CLR called Rotor. There is a competing Mono framework based on the same set of standards. There are open source compilers and IDEs that include C# and target the .Net runtime. Microsoft doesn't block any of these activities, in fact some of them are actively run by Microsoft. But even if you don't like the restrictions of .net, you are free to use C++, python, C, Java, in fact, you can use whatever tools or languages you want. Microsoft do not make any restrictions on the tools you are allowed to use to build for their platforms. If you can build it, they will let you. Microsoft do not make any restrictions on the types of applications you are allowed to write. If you want to write a competing media player, a competing office product, or a competing language/framework/IDE you are free to do so. You can also use whatever distribution channel you want for your apps On the other hand, lets look at Apple. To build for the IPhone you have to use a Mac, and thanks to the 3.3.1 changes you now have to use their toolset. You also have to get approval from Apple that your app doesn't compete with any of theirs, and meets their (sometimes secretive) requirements for inclusion in the AppStore.
Simon
Simon P Stevens wrote:
On the other hand, lets look at Apple. To build for the IPhone you have to use a Mac, and thanks to the 3.3.1 changes you now have to use their toolset.
Yeah because I can build Windows apps on other OSes besides Windows with so much ease it's unreal. I mean really this is moot. If you're going to build an app for a platform you have to get that platform to test the app on anyway.
Simon P Stevens wrote:
But even if you don't like the restrictions of .net, you are free to use C++, python, C, Java, in fact, you can use whatever tools or languages you want.
Using an iPhone or iPad is zippy. IMO that's what they're trying to preserve. Not everyone needs to be a dev that requires to use an environment with 20 layers of abstraction just because they don't want to learn a new SDK. I mean really, so many embedded devices only have a subset of compilers, this isn't anything new. Do I fully agree with Apple's choice on this? I can't say I do. But, are some people on CP blowing it way out of proportion? You bet they are.
Jeremy Falcon
-
True, but how long has MacOs been around in it's current incarnation? If you've built kit for the original Mac (the 68K based one), you've already binned it once. If you've developed for the Power based one, you can bin your stuff soon enough. I have Dos and Windows 2.0 programs that can still run (admittedly, I don't want to use them anymore :-) )
Yeah, that I do agree with that. I do think MS has been better about backwards compatibility than Apple. It probably stems more from the fact MS is more business orientated, and so they have little choice. However, MS also wished they didn't have to that. They can't make Windows as lean and mean as they'd like because of this very reason. Whereas Apple said screw it, we're going lean and mean. Personally, I can see value in both directions. And, it works if you also upgrade hardware in conjunction with software. But that can be expensive, and so I can see some companies not wishing to do that.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
With your XAML code the only way to modify the layout is to rewrite the markup
But "markup" here does not mean content, unlike with HTML+CSS. XAML can be used to define layout and no content, just like CSS, only with much easier and more logical syntax. What is preventing me from using the same XAML to display various content? I just set the content with the code-behind.
I think I am lost now. In my example: Content = Message (subject, text, author date) Markup = HTML I can vary my content and generate similar markup in structure (same elements). I can vary my CSS and layout the HTML in different ways: as a grid or as a floating post-it notes. If I want to do the same thing in XAML, I will have to change my XAML (markup) to change the layout: from a grid panel to a dock panel or a stack panel. Whatever you can achieve via XAML is already achievable in HTML (even without using CSS for layouts). CSS for layouts is not even a requirement.
