Thoughts on Flash
-
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.
-
I am biased here because I love CSS (because I spent lot of time learning/understanding it in detail).
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Especially CSS for layout.
To some extent yes, the headaches have more to do with IE's poor support for CSS. Open XAML (if at all there will be one) is not going to solve the problem. CSS is extremely flexible, and if implemented right by all browsers (well one specific browser) it can lead to amazing things which is not always possible via XAML.
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
I am biased here because I love CSS (because I spent lot of time learning/understanding it in detail).
100% agreed on that man. I think people that hate CSS the most just don't know it. I will never, ever go back to the old way. I can't stand seeing cluttered HTML now.
Jeremy Falcon
-
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
The whole point of the IPhone, and even more the Ipad, is capturing the developer market. Microsoft has been hugely successful in this market, and this market has carried over to make windows a virtual monopoly in the PC business. By making their systems incompatible with existing real or de facto computing standards Apple (and Google) hope to swing the trend for consumer devices. Let's be honest, 90% of the people who own a PC these days use it for getting their mail, and browsing the web. You don't need a PC for that. If they ever buy an app, it's likely to be a screensaver with naked women. Oh and Office, but that will soon change. The thing is, the consumer market does not want our fancy highly technical apps on windows. They want something where they click a button, and presto, the info is there. No parameters, no awkward setup questions. Instant gratification. 10 years from now, you will not see a single PC in the home (except mine, but I'm a retard). Microsoft will have won the battle for the Corporate world, with servers and desktops for employees, and other players (maybe Google, maybe Apple) will have evolved as the main supplier of consumer IT. only it will not be called IT. Apple wants this to be platform-centric(which may be a mistake, time will tell), Google wants it to be Information centric (where they supply the information). And games? Games will run on Games consoles, as they should, and not pollute my PC, when I'm and old man (middle of next week, I guess).
-
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.
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
In my example: Content = Message (subject, text, author date) Markup = HTML
In my example, the XAML snippet would correspond to your CSS, not HTML. All I am saying is that CSS is a bad solution when it comes to defining layout. Something with a similar role but better syntax (XAML-like, for instance) would serve the purpose much better.
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
CSS for layouts is not even a requirement.
As I said, CSS for colors, fonts etc is fine. It is its support for layout that is broken.
-
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
How many times have you seen Apple running a business critical application?
-
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
I am biased here because I love CSS (because I spent lot of time learning/understanding it in detail).
100% agreed on that man. I think people that hate CSS the most just don't know it. I will never, ever go back to the old way. I can't stand seeing cluttered HTML now.
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I think people that hate CSS the most just don't know it.
Oh, fine. However, I do tend to invest my time into a good technology: I use vim, C++, gdb, Unix shell, svn from command line; they are hard to learn, but give reward for the time and effort I invested. I feel learning CSS was a complete waste of time for me - it just makes my life harder rather than easier.
-
How many times have you seen Apple running a business critical application?
Michel Godfroid wrote:
How many times have you seen Apple running a business critical application?
Does solitaire count? I know a lot of people I've worked with rely on that for day-to-day operations. :-D
Jeremy Falcon
-
Michel Godfroid wrote:
How many times have you seen Apple running a business critical application?
Does solitaire count? I know a lot of people I've worked with rely on that for day-to-day operations. :-D
Jeremy Falcon
You have solitaire on the Mac? Gimme Plzzzz Urgentz!!!!
-
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
In my example: Content = Message (subject, text, author date) Markup = HTML
In my example, the XAML snippet would correspond to your CSS, not HTML. All I am saying is that CSS is a bad solution when it comes to defining layout. Something with a similar role but better syntax (XAML-like, for instance) would serve the purpose much better.
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
CSS for layouts is not even a requirement.
As I said, CSS for colors, fonts etc is fine. It is its support for layout that is broken.
Your original post was you prefer XAML over HTML + CSS + JS combination. All I am saying is HTML + CSS + JS combination is more flexible than the XAML approach. It can do everything XAML can do and much more. Even performance is getting better.
-
I just hope that Flash dies completely (maybe at the hands of HTML5?), on the PC as well. Much like Java has - when almost everyone used to say that it would live forever.
harold aptroot wrote:
Much like Java has
Java hasn't died at all in the enterprise market. Not that I'm a huge Java fan, but it's not dead.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
In my example: Content = Message (subject, text, author date) Markup = HTML
In my example, the XAML snippet would correspond to your CSS, not HTML. All I am saying is that CSS is a bad solution when it comes to defining layout. Something with a similar role but better syntax (XAML-like, for instance) would serve the purpose much better.
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
CSS for layouts is not even a requirement.
As I said, CSS for colors, fonts etc is fine. It is its support for layout that is broken.
Also funny is that at one point you did criticize XAML based UIs :). Now Microsoft has changed you a lot. Not that there is anything bad with it :).
-
Your original post was you prefer XAML over HTML + CSS + JS combination. All I am saying is HTML + CSS + JS combination is more flexible than the XAML approach. It can do everything XAML can do and much more. Even performance is getting better.
My original post is that I don't like the HTML + CSS + JS combination and wished for something like open XAML. Admittedly, that would fix only the "CSS for layout" part of the HTML + CSS + JS combo which is bad in much more than one way :-D
-
Also funny is that at one point you did criticize XAML based UIs :). Now Microsoft has changed you a lot. Not that there is anything bad with it :).
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
Also funny is that at one point you did criticize XAML based UIs
No, I criticized XML based frameworks in general, and undocumented ones in particular (still can't stand them). XAML is not a framework - it is simply the best way I know of to define UI layout.
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I think people that hate CSS the most just don't know it.
Oh, fine. However, I do tend to invest my time into a good technology: I use vim, C++, gdb, Unix shell, svn from command line; they are hard to learn, but give reward for the time and effort I invested. I feel learning CSS was a complete waste of time for me - it just makes my life harder rather than easier.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
it just makes my life harder rather than easier.
That's how I feel about most of the *nix skllz I have :) Can you say make, grep/sed, and DNS configuration?
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Personal 3D projects Just Say No to Web 2 Point Blow
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
it just makes my life harder rather than easier.
That's how I feel about most of the *nix skllz I have :) Can you say make, grep/sed, and DNS configuration?
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Personal 3D projects Just Say No to Web 2 Point Blow
Jim Crafton wrote:
Can you say make, grep/sed, and DNS configuration
You'll notice I didn't mention make among the hard to learn but rewarding technologies :) grep, on the other hand is pretty easy and useful. Why don't you like it? Or is it only in combination with sed?
-
Jim Crafton wrote:
Can you say make, grep/sed, and DNS configuration
You'll notice I didn't mention make among the hard to learn but rewarding technologies :) grep, on the other hand is pretty easy and useful. Why don't you like it? Or is it only in combination with sed?
actually, grep isn't too bad. It's sed that I find annoying. I don't use it enough to remember all the pattern matching syntax, and the syntax for replacing things. And then once I do get it to work, it's a virtually unreadable morass of "/" and "\" characters. It powerful, but it feels like using a gatling gun to do weeding.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Personal 3D projects Just Say No to Web 2 Point Blow
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Much like Java has
Java hasn't died at all in the enterprise market. Not that I'm a huge Java fan, but it's not dead.
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Java hasn't died at all in the enterprise market.
Which is an other way of saying that it's dead. COBOL hasn't died - in the economic sector. Remember almost every site used to have a Java applet even if it was just to make a funky menu that took an hour to load?
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Java hasn't died at all in the enterprise market.
Which is an other way of saying that it's dead. COBOL hasn't died - in the economic sector. Remember almost every site used to have a Java applet even if it was just to make a funky menu that took an hour to load?
harold aptroot wrote:
Remember almost every site used to have a Java apple
No I don't. The Applet did not take off that well.
harold aptroot wrote:
Which is an other way of saying that it's dead. COBOL hasn't died - in the economic sector.
No one does any new development in COBOL. There are lot of places where new Java development goes on: Web applications, Clouds, Enterprise Client/Server software and last but not least J2ME phones. Just because you are out of touch with the Java world does not mean it is dead.
-
Thoughts on Flash[^] by Steve Jobs Love him or hate him but IMHO he's got this one right. Thoughts?
Having just had an episode where my cursor kept disappearing and reappearing while using Aperture (yeah, on a Mac) because I had a Flickr slideshow (implemented in….oh yeah, Flash) open in a minimized Safari window, I totally concur with Jobso's opinion of Flash...
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p CodeProject MVP for 2010 - who'd'a thunk it!
-
Not jumping into bed with flash is one thing. But is apple still preventing other browsers like SkyFire from running on their sacred products? Skyfire can run tons of flash apps on my winmo phone.
Nope - you can get Opera Mini for the iPhone.
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p CodeProject MVP for 2010 - who'd'a thunk it!