Question: tools for business apps development

P

Peter Hansen

JanC said:
Ksenia Marasanova schreef:

You can do this with HTML+JavaScript too, no need for Flash...

Disadvantages of this approach include serious problems
with the cross-platform aspect, caused mainly by differences
in the JavaScript implementations on different browsers.

In addition, there is not yet a fully functional standard
way of communicating between JavaScript and the server on
the back end, short of doing page reloads.

Suffice to say that while HTML+JavaScript can do the job,
in principle, in practice it falls short and Flash is
potentially a much more effective solution, at least for
now and the near future.

-Peter
 
C

Carlos Ribeiro

In addition, there is not yet a fully functional standard
way of communicating between JavaScript and the server on
the back end, short of doing page reloads.

Gmail and other similar applications almost solved this issue by using
a clever design. The webpage is divided into frames; one of the frames
is not visible, and holds the main script. The other frame is visible.
There are calls in the visible frames to the code in the hidden frame.
The hidden frame can also keep communicating with the server to update
fields.

For more information, check libgmail (written in Python). It's not as
hard as it seems, specially because a lot of the differences between
the browsers can be solved in a single place and conveniently reused.
Suffice to say that while HTML+JavaScript can do the job,
in principle, in practice it falls short and Flash is
potentially a much more effective solution, at least for
now and the near future.

I understand that some people really like Flash. It's nifty and
powerful. And the CSS+HTML+JavaScript combination is slow, tricky,
confusing, complex, etc. -- it's just asking for a redesign, but there
is way too much code written for it to happen in any dramatic fashion.
However, Flash is not an open standard, and that's a big problem. Who
can guarantee that the upcoming versions of the Flash plugin will keep
the same interface? It's a risk that you have to take into account.

--
Carlos Ribeiro
Consultoria em Projetos
blog: http://rascunhosrotos.blogspot.com
blog: http://pythonnotes.blogspot.com
mail: (e-mail address removed)
mail: (e-mail address removed)
 
K

Ksenia Marasanova

Op 9-sep-04 om 5:57 heeft Carlos Ribeiro het volgende geschreven:
I understand that some people really like Flash. It's nifty and
powerful. And the CSS+HTML+JavaScript combination is slow, tricky,
confusing, complex, etc. -- it's just asking for a redesign, but there
is way too much code written for it to happen in any dramatic fashion.
However, Flash is not an open standard, and that's a big problem. Who
can guarantee that the upcoming versions of the Flash plugin will keep
the same interface? It's a risk that you have to take into account.
Agreed, Flash is not an open standard, and this is a concern.
But I just want to remind, that if you are going to use JavaScript to
code really responsive user interface - the big amount of this code
will deal with non-standard IE (and even Mozilla and other browsers)
DOM/CSS implementations and bugs... and it can be really frustrating if
you love standards:)

Here is a nice article about that (maybe a bit dated, but still...):
http://evolt.org/article/Mission_Impossible_mouse_position/17/23335/

Ksenia.
 
D

Daniel Ellison

Carlos said:
I understand that some people really like Flash. It's nifty and
powerful. And the CSS+HTML+JavaScript combination is slow, tricky,
confusing, complex, etc. -- it's just asking for a redesign, but there
is way too much code written for it to happen in any dramatic fashion.
However, Flash is not an open standard, and that's a big problem. Who
can guarantee that the upcoming versions of the Flash plugin will keep
the same interface? It's a risk that you have to take into account.

No, Flash isn't SVG. Luckily. But, as has been mentioned before, the swf
format is published by Macromedia and is freely available. The Flash
plugin is in well over 90% of all browsers in the world (actually it's
around 95% for the Flash 6 plugin). It would behoove Macromedia *not* to
make any drastic changes to Flash in order that they maintain
compatibility with the hundreds of millions of installations already out
there, not to mention the tens of thousands of Flash animations,
advertisements (yuck!) and now web applications that depend on the Flash
player/plugin.

A risk, yes, but not much of one.

Dan
 
C

Carlos Ribeiro

[talking about the risks regarding Flash changes]
A risk, yes, but not much of one.

I have to agree, and I admit that my problems with Flash come down to
two small issues:

-- It's too glitzy :) Yes, it may be a problem for people used to
design apps the old way. It's funny to note that Windows apps are not
much different from old text apps, as far as the structure of the
dialogs and windows is concerned. Everything is a rectangle. Flash
frees you of this kind of limitation. This kind of freedom can be
frightening for old timers (such as me).

-- Philosophically thinking, it's not free so it should not be used.
This a Stalmanish position, but it does have some power in the context
of a decision to use only free tools.

BTW, if the Flash format is already open, and if Shockwave can't just
change it, why do they don't just dedicate it to the public domain as
proof of their good intentions? The fact is that there are a lot of
stuff that they want to keep for themselves -- the power to steer the
development of the Flash standard, and possibly a few patented
processes to generate or render some of its features.


--
Carlos Ribeiro
Consultoria em Projetos
blog: http://rascunhosrotos.blogspot.com
blog: http://pythonnotes.blogspot.com
mail: (e-mail address removed)
mail: (e-mail address removed)
 
D

Daniel Ellison

Carlos said:
[talking about the risks regarding Flash changes]
A risk, yes, but not much of one.


I have to agree, and I admit that my problems with Flash come down to
two small issues:

-- It's too glitzy :) Yes, it may be a problem for people used to
design apps the old way. It's funny to note that Windows apps are not
much different from old text apps, as far as the structure of the
dialogs and windows is concerned. Everything is a rectangle. Flash
frees you of this kind of limitation. This kind of freedom can be
frightening for old timers (such as me).

:) By any measure, I'm an old-timer as well. Maybe it helps that I have
a graphics background, but then Peter doesn't and he seems open to the
idea (see his "Flython" thread). But for those frightened by the
non-rectangular nature of Flash :), there are many drag-and drop
component libraries available which let you create what look like, for
all intents and purposes, Windoze applications. The latest version of
the Flash authoring environment supports this explicitly, with extensive
libraries of powerful UI components, many of which incorporate automatic
data validation. Macromedia's big push right now is what they call rich
Internet applications. They (finally) see the potential of Flash as a
very effective cross-platform client.
-- Philosophically thinking, it's not free so it should not be used.
This a Stalmanish position, but it does have some power in the context
of a decision to use only free tools.

Well, I'm not here to argue philosophical or moral issues, but I do
believe in using the right tool for the right job. I do *not* believe
that CSS+HTML+JavaScript is the right tool for /any/ job, actually.
Currently, Flash is one of the only viable alternatives if one is
writing a web-based application.

Btw, "it's not free so it should not be used" wouldn't get you very far
outside the IT world... :)
BTW, if the Flash format is already open, and if Shockwave can't just
change it, why do they don't just dedicate it to the public domain as
proof of their good intentions? The fact is that there are a lot of
stuff that they want to keep for themselves -- the power to steer the
development of the Flash standard, and possibly a few patented
processes to generate or render some of its features.

Of /course/ they want control over their own format. They are a
business, after all. (No... step away... from the controversy... must...
resist...).

Anyway, I do not work for, nor have I ever worked for Macromedia. I just
see the potential in a technology that to date has been vastly mis-used
and misunderstood. I think the combination of Python on the back-end and
Flash on the client is an excellent approach for web applications.

Dan
 
P

Peter Hansen

The player is free. And while the ability to create Flash scripts are both
free, it is true that there are currently few free tools that let
you do this.
 
P

Peter Hansen

Carlos said:
-- Philosophically thinking, it's not free so it should not be used.
This a Stalmanish position, but it does have some power in the context
of a decision to use only free tools.

The player is free. And while the ability to create Flash files
is also free, it's true that currently there are few useful tools
to do that, and the alternatives are not only not free, but in
some cases are rather expensive (especially compared to where the
price of development tools has come in recent years). I suspect
that as Macromedia finds more of a market amongst developers for
this sort of thing (as Dan suggests they are doing) they may
discover that charging $500 for the development side isn't going to
get them much of the market. Maybe something less "flashy" and
more staid and serious for more like $50-200 would get them into
that area much more rapidly.

-Peter
 
L

Larry Bugbee

-- It's too glitzy :) Yes, it may be a problem for people used to
:) By any measure, I'm an old-timer as well.

FWIW, I have removed Flash as have some other folks I know. The reason
is because we do not multi-task and cannot read the page with all the
flashing and movement. ...removed because there is no option to disable
(yes, there are now a couple of Firefox extensions).

Just because there may be a large percentage of browsers with Flash,
there is still a large number (raw count) that don't and won't.

If a rich client is what you are after, consider XUL in conjunction with
css, javascript and your favorite language. A web site can serve XUL,
the XUL can be distributed as a browser extension, or the XUL can be
packaged as a double clickable app. It is a whole heck richer than HTML
without the unintended side-effect annoyances caused by Flash.
http://xulplanet.com/tutorials/whyxul.html
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xul/

Oh, I too have silver hair. :)

Larry
 
C

Carlos Ribeiro

FWIW, I have removed Flash as have some other folks I know. The reason
is because we do not multi-task and cannot read the page with all the
flashing and movement. ...removed because there is no option to disable
(yes, there are now a couple of Firefox extensions).

It occurred to me that the problem is not with Flash for itself. I'm
sure that good designers can do a lot of good stuff with Flash that
can't be done otherwise using DHTML or even XUL. The problem is that
is way too easy to abuse Flash.

I remember when IE started taking the market by storm, and in the
process added some annyong extensions to its own HTML version. The
worst ones were the blinking and the the "running text " (I forgot the
correct name for it now). All of a sudden almost every
I-know-HTML-and-I-pretend-to-be-a-geek website started using large
blinking red text right on the home page. Imagine what would happen if
Flash tools were more affordable...

--
Carlos Ribeiro
Consultoria em Projetos
blog: http://rascunhosrotos.blogspot.com
blog: http://pythonnotes.blogspot.com
mail: (e-mail address removed)
mail: (e-mail address removed)
 
J

JanC

Carlos Ribeiro schreef:
I remember when IE started taking the market by storm, and in the
process added some annyong extensions to its own HTML version. The
worst ones were the blinking

<blink>Blinking was invented by Netscape</blink>
 
K

Ksenia Marasanova

-- Philosophically thinking, it's not free so it should not be used.
The player is free. And while the ability to create Flash files
is also free, it's true that currently there are few useful tools
to do that, and the alternatives are not only not free, but in
some cases are rather expensive (especially compared to where the
price of development tools has come in recent years). I suspect
that as Macromedia finds more of a market amongst developers for
this sort of thing (as Dan suggests they are doing) they may
discover that charging $500 for the development side isn't going to
get them much of the market. Maybe something less "flashy" and
more staid and serious for more like $50-200 would get them into
that area much more rapidly.

Unfortunatelly, the price of Macromedia's latest (and greatest, I
think) development tool is very high - $12000.
The name is Flex: http://www.macromedia.com/software/flex/

Ksenia.
 
R

RIA Builder

hm..., there is the answer for you folks...
try IAB Studio from worcsnet.com the demo application is available at
www.iabstudio.com
with IBA Studio you do not have to worry about coding, just think
about the business that you want to implement.
just go to www.iabstudio.com and try it by yourself.
regards..
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,769
Messages
2,569,580
Members
45,055
Latest member
SlimSparkKetoACVReview

Latest Threads

Top