Thoughts on Flash
-
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
Just because you are out of touch with the Java world does not mean it is dead.
Actually it does - if there is so little Java that I do not even encounter it without trying to avoid it, that means it has become a niche thing. And therefore dead. Like COBOL.
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
No I don't. The Applet did not take off that well.
Perhaps you didn't frequent the same parts of the 'net that I did.. Besides the whole discussion is only about applets anyway. I wouldn't see some crappy phone app as a competitor to Flash.
modified on Thursday, April 29, 2010 2:18 PM
harold aptroot wrote:
Actually it does - if there is so little Java that I do not even encounter it without trying to avoid it
C is still popular and I do not encounter it at all in my current line of work. That just means you're in the wrong market.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Darn! PHP is more popular than C#. That can't be right. ;P
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
Darn! PHP is more popular than C#. That can't be right.
:laugh: You know I thought that, but I didn't say it.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Where is yours to say that Java is dead?
- View a random site. Does it have a Java applet? Probably not. 2) Download a random program. Is it a Java program? Probably not. So where is Java used then eh? Some niche markets? Java is also taught at lots of colleges, I'm sure that contributes to the perceived "popularity" even though it is nowhere to be seen in real life.
harold aptroot wrote:
- View a random site. Does it have a Java applet? Probably not. 2) Download a random program. Is it a Java program? Probably not.
How many times do we have to repeat "that's a different market" before you get it?
Jeremy Falcon
-
harold aptroot wrote:
- View a random site. Does it have a Java applet? Probably not. 2) Download a random program. Is it a Java program? Probably not.
How many times do we have to repeat "that's a different market" before you get it?
Jeremy Falcon
-
harold aptroot wrote:
- View a random site. Does it have a Java applet? Probably not. 2) Download a random program. Is it a Java program? Probably not.
How many times do we have to repeat "that's a different market" before you get it?
Jeremy Falcon
-
Just once more? No I get it, really, but I don't get why you don't think that that just means that it's dead. If something is only used on servers .. ? How many servers are there, compared to desktops?
harold aptroot wrote:
Just once more? No I get it, really, but I don't get why you don't think that that just means that it's dead. If something is only used on servers .. ? How many servers are there, compared to desktops?
You are comparing apples to oranges. For one, if there was less servers that does mean Java is dead. Which is YOUR point I'm debating. For two, considering you don't know this answer yourself, then you have zero way of knowing for sure it is dead. For three, because of point two, that means you're pretty much just arguing there bub. Now, lets pretend this measure is important to a point, it's a metric that I do not know faithfully. I know sites like Facebook have 30,000 servers. There are at least 20 billion websites registered for DNS services (sure it's not a 1 to 1 server ratio but you get the idea). And lets not forget the servers that don't serve web pages. Apparently 92 million computers were sold last year. Not sure which of those were servers or not. But, I'll leave that to you to actually do some research. But the server market is not small potatoes just because you have no experience in it. And lets not forget Java is used on mobile platforms as well.
Jeremy Falcon
-
And besides, I was just comparing it to Flash. And I'm pretty sure you're not looking at the market that Flash targets.
harold aptroot wrote:
And besides, I was just comparing it to Flash.
And COBOL, and deskop apps, and everything else...
harold aptroot wrote:
And I'm pretty sure you're not looking at the market that Flash targets.
That's because we're talking about Java yo. And thanks for the downvote.
Jeremy Falcon
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Just once more? No I get it, really, but I don't get why you don't think that that just means that it's dead. If something is only used on servers .. ? How many servers are there, compared to desktops?
You are comparing apples to oranges. For one, if there was less servers that does mean Java is dead. Which is YOUR point I'm debating. For two, considering you don't know this answer yourself, then you have zero way of knowing for sure it is dead. For three, because of point two, that means you're pretty much just arguing there bub. Now, lets pretend this measure is important to a point, it's a metric that I do not know faithfully. I know sites like Facebook have 30,000 servers. There are at least 20 billion websites registered for DNS services (sure it's not a 1 to 1 server ratio but you get the idea). And lets not forget the servers that don't serve web pages. Apparently 92 million computers were sold last year. Not sure which of those were servers or not. But, I'll leave that to you to actually do some research. But the server market is not small potatoes just because you have no experience in it. And lets not forget Java is used on mobile platforms as well.
Jeremy Falcon
Lol well a couple of things 1) you're feeding the obvious troll. 2) the apples and oranges can be compared. Java applets are comparable to Flash - tell me it aint so. 3) for servers the number of discrete machines is not useful knowledge as they will be clustered anyway - a larger cluster does not create a bigger market. 4) are mobile platforms that use flash as "normal programs"? I didn't think so, but if there are some then you have a small point there.
-
Just once more? No I get it, really, but I don't get why you don't think that that just means that it's dead. If something is only used on servers .. ? How many servers are there, compared to desktops?
harold aptroot wrote:
How many servers are there, compared to desktops?
That's funny! If there are more servers compared to desktops, it does not mean more development goes on the desktop platform rather than on the server platform :).
-
harold aptroot wrote:
And besides, I was just comparing it to Flash.
And COBOL, and deskop apps, and everything else...
harold aptroot wrote:
And I'm pretty sure you're not looking at the market that Flash targets.
That's because we're talking about Java yo. And thanks for the downvote.
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
And COBOL, and deskop apps, and everything else...
I like to argue. See above.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
That's because we're talking about Java yo.
O rly? Well obviously when I say "java is dead" in a Flash context, I wouldn't be talking about usage on servers. I guess it wasn't obvious enough.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
And thanks for the downvote.
:confused:
-
harold aptroot wrote:
How many servers are there, compared to desktops?
That's funny! If there are more servers compared to desktops, it does not mean more development goes on the desktop platform rather than on the server platform :).
-
Lol well a couple of things 1) you're feeding the obvious troll. 2) the apples and oranges can be compared. Java applets are comparable to Flash - tell me it aint so. 3) for servers the number of discrete machines is not useful knowledge as they will be clustered anyway - a larger cluster does not create a bigger market. 4) are mobile platforms that use flash as "normal programs"? I didn't think so, but if there are some then you have a small point there.
harold aptroot wrote:
- you're feeding the obvious troll.
Dude you just called yourself a troll.
harold aptroot wrote:
- the apples and oranges can be compared. Java applets are comparable to Flash - tell me it aint so.
This is a straw man tactic.
harold aptroot wrote:
- for servers the number of discrete machines is not useful knowledge as they will be clustered anyway - a larger cluster does not create a bigger market.
In part this is true. But can also indicate just how large the market is. Desktops aren't the only things sold, and desktop computers was your focus like it was the end all be all.
harold aptroot wrote:
- are mobile platforms that use flash as "normal programs"? I didn't think so, but if there are some then you have a small point there.
This makes no sense dude. Sorry, but really Java is not dead. You can beat your dead horse until you're blue in the face, but it won't change that. Now I gotta get back to work to finish a website. And guess what, it's NOT written in Java!
Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
And COBOL, and deskop apps, and everything else...
I like to argue. See above.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
That's because we're talking about Java yo.
O rly? Well obviously when I say "java is dead" in a Flash context, I wouldn't be talking about usage on servers. I guess it wasn't obvious enough.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
And thanks for the downvote.
:confused:
harold aptroot wrote:
O rly? Well obviously when I say "java is dead" in a Flash context, I wouldn't be talking about usage on servers. I guess it wasn't obvious enough.
Well, then why compare it to COBOL and desktop apps? And why not mention servers until we do?
harold aptroot wrote:
Confused
Someone down voted me. Gonna share with you a little secret of mine. It may not have been you, but that's my way of trying to lure out the person that did it. :cool:
Jeremy Falcon
-
Thoughts on Flash[^] by Steve Jobs Love him or hate him but IMHO he's got this one right. Thoughts?
adj. /ˌdɪs ɪnˈdʒɛn yu əs/: Steve Jobs. "First, there’s “Open”. Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc." Yet anyone can create a Flash application, and anyone can consume a Flash application. On the other hand, only those applications specifically blessed by Apple can ever be deployed on an iPhad, and even then, Apple has (and has exercised) the right to remove that app from circulation. I find it insulting that Steve uses this as an argument that not allowing Flash is "based on technology issues". Here's another: "Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash" But what about flash based websites? An iPhad cannot access them. However, I actually think that discouraging the development of Flash based websites is not a bad thing. "although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5" On "Adobe are slow": http://www.neowin.net/news/apple-opens-hardware-acceleration-for-flash-other-third-party-software[^]: Via the latest 10.6.3 update for Mac OS X Snow Leopard, Apple seems to be finally allowing third party developers to access the low level H.264 decoding power of the GPUs within its Macs. 6 days later Adobe released the first preview with their hardware accelerated 'Gala' release. Granted, this isn't quite what Apple are saying, but you can't go on about Standards and open platforms while deliberately locking others out of your own platform. Steve says "We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers" which is exactly what Apple does to anyone trying to develop on the Mac platform. Do as we say, not as we do.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
harold aptroot wrote:
O rly? Well obviously when I say "java is dead" in a Flash context, I wouldn't be talking about usage on servers. I guess it wasn't obvious enough.
Well, then why compare it to COBOL and desktop apps? And why not mention servers until we do?
harold aptroot wrote:
Confused
Someone down voted me. Gonna share with you a little secret of mine. It may not have been you, but that's my way of trying to lure out the person that did it. :cool:
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Well, then why compare it to COBOL and desktop apps? And why not mention servers until we do?
Would I have had as much fun if I hadn't done that? I got a bit bored of it all a couple of minutes ago though, we were just going in circles around different arguments anyway.. time to check b
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Someone down voted me. Gonna share with you a little secret of mine. It may not have been you, but that's my way of trying to lure out the person that did it.
That sounds like a pretty good tactic actually
-
harold aptroot wrote:
- you're feeding the obvious troll.
Dude you just called yourself a troll.
harold aptroot wrote:
- the apples and oranges can be compared. Java applets are comparable to Flash - tell me it aint so.
This is a straw man tactic.
harold aptroot wrote:
- for servers the number of discrete machines is not useful knowledge as they will be clustered anyway - a larger cluster does not create a bigger market.
In part this is true. But can also indicate just how large the market is. Desktops aren't the only things sold, and desktop computers was your focus like it was the end all be all.
harold aptroot wrote:
- are mobile platforms that use flash as "normal programs"? I didn't think so, but if there are some then you have a small point there.
This makes no sense dude. Sorry, but really Java is not dead. You can beat your dead horse until you're blue in the face, but it won't change that. Now I gotta get back to work to finish a website. And guess what, it's NOT written in Java!
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
Simon P Stevens wrote:
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.
Then man up and use C++. Solves the whole thing.
¡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
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Darn! PHP is more popular than C#. That can't be right. ;P
That is very sad.
-
adj. /ˌdɪs ɪnˈdʒɛn yu əs/: Steve Jobs. "First, there’s “Open”. Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc." Yet anyone can create a Flash application, and anyone can consume a Flash application. On the other hand, only those applications specifically blessed by Apple can ever be deployed on an iPhad, and even then, Apple has (and has exercised) the right to remove that app from circulation. I find it insulting that Steve uses this as an argument that not allowing Flash is "based on technology issues". Here's another: "Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash" But what about flash based websites? An iPhad cannot access them. However, I actually think that discouraging the development of Flash based websites is not a bad thing. "although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5" On "Adobe are slow": http://www.neowin.net/news/apple-opens-hardware-acceleration-for-flash-other-third-party-software[^]: Via the latest 10.6.3 update for Mac OS X Snow Leopard, Apple seems to be finally allowing third party developers to access the low level H.264 decoding power of the GPUs within its Macs. 6 days later Adobe released the first preview with their hardware accelerated 'Gala' release. Granted, this isn't quite what Apple are saying, but you can't go on about Standards and open platforms while deliberately locking others out of your own platform. Steve says "We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers" which is exactly what Apple does to anyone trying to develop on the Mac platform. Do as we say, not as we do.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open He does not say that Apple in not closed. All he says is that he thinks web should be open. In other words, no one has control over web and it should remain like that. (Now, if Apple had the most popular browser in the market, then things may have been different but they don't.)
-
we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open He does not say that Apple in not closed. All he says is that he thinks web should be open. In other words, no one has control over web and it should remain like that. (Now, if Apple had the most popular browser in the market, then things may have been different but they don't.)
That's fine, but he's being very sanctimonious in trying to take the high ground on openess in the web while ignoring his own company's practices. If he had just said "Flash is a dead-end technology that should and will be replaced by HTML5. Why bother going through the hoops to provide support for a technology that is old, highly inefficient and lacks innovation" then I would say "hear, hear".
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP