Last time I hand wrote a custom ajax file upload it took me about 10 minutes. Most of that was testing. Just a html form, some nice css (already there prior to starting as I have a guy who does design), a quick ajax function in jquery and display a nice uploading bar, and php to accept and store the file.
I use jquery and php. I can write good solid cross platform code just as fast and probably cheaper then most of those 'design' oriented companies that use flash/flex.
Not only that but I can see these things. 1) Your customers will not need to download any plugins 2) My code will work on all major browsers 3) my code will work (without extra work) on all browsers including all cell phone browsers 4) My code is compressed and a lot of the time smaller then the flash equivalent. 5) The framework I am using is open source and is not dependent on the original developer for support. 6) anyone who has done any web development in the last 5 years will be able to quickly understand and support my code.
Flex is not bad, but it is not going to kill everything out there. Silverlight is going to be slow going and probably die a microsoft death once they realize that to make it work they have to support all browsers and operating systems. Paying some linux guys to do a half ass shitty port doesn't count.
Of course there is a mac client, but maybe they will get pissed at mac and pull support (they have done it before).
Not to mention this situation. I decided to develop a new browser or even OS. Perhaps I think I can go one better then anything else out there. If it is an open standard that I can support, then I can choose to support it. With flash/sliverlight/etc I do not have that choice. It is that vendors choice to support me. This hurts innovation in general.
Until there is a vital security flaw in that version of the silverlight/flash/flex runtime. then you have to move.
I would gladly accept something better then html/css + javascript + jquery + php, I just don't see anything promising right now. Although I have toyed with the idea of using extJS (yajsf)
Flash = no end user choice, no open source tools, no transparency (in a design sense, not a physical one), no accessibility, currently a vendor lock in to a single company (do you want to use GNASH?), currently has large security flaws (according to recent slashdot articles), I can keep going on.
Javascript = consistent, well tested, poorly designed language. When used properly it is fully transparent to the end user, even allowing sites to work without it. Security flaws are now browser based and you can get browsers from many different vendors, you have no vendor lock in when you use javascript and there are tons of open source tools to make javascript development easy to do right (thank you jquery).
On a side note, java is now almost 100% open source, giving even more reason to use that for more application type programs.
And yes, there is a difference between an application and a web page. That window is shrinking, but even when it finally no longer exists there will be better options then flash.
The main reason javascript was hated was because of poor browser standards for javascript and the DOM. It was also hated becuase of the way javascript was used (which is only one of the many reasons I dislike flash). Finally, it was hated because of the bandwidth limitations of modems. All of these issues are mostly resolved though javascript frameworks, better browser support and broadband.
Regardless however, I for one do not want to use google flash maps or google flash mail. I love the flexibility real web design gives me. The only people this lock end benefits are the large companys who want to dictate how the computer world is ran. The only people who lose is everyone else.
Again, you are giving an example of an application, not a web page. Something like that might be better done in flash. 99% of everything else is not. How often is flash used like that? Not very often. Flash is mostly used in places it does not belong. Drop down menus, main content of sites, submission forms, preloading images, etc. It simply does not belong in web design. It is a very locked in way of developing some tiny interesting applications, and should be used for nothing more.
What are 99% of websites? They are shopping carts, blogs, rss feeds, news, about us, forms, etc. All of that is perfectly done with just html/css and php/whatever. Javascript can make it better without losing any backwards compatibility and giving the user a lot of control over what happens. Flash can not.
As for security, you simply can not control what happens on the clients machine. You might want to, but it is impossible. Having actually tried to write XSS/script attacks, it is much harder then you make it sound. I'd be better off infecting my target with malware though direct means (email and social engineering)
But if that is the only reasons you have, it is not a convincing argument imho. I'm not going to start making my users login to a flash app instead of a good old html form for their security. SSL, html, and server side validation are enough for me.
I think ajax is a better choice for 99% of every example of flash web design out there. Yes there are things flash/java can do that you can't do with html/css/javascript/some server side code, but those things are not really focused on web design.
As I've pointed out, I wouldn't want to write a game using ajax, flash works great for that. I can't make something like youtube easily without flash. But for almost every other use I can think of, ajax is better.
I would find it easier to give you more concrete explanations if I had examples of things you think flash does that merit its use in web design over html/css/javascript/and some server side code (php, asp, jsp, whatever).
You did give one example, hiding source code. This shows me already that you are missing one fundamental truth about the web. You can't use obscurity for security. Hiding the source code in the case of a webpage does nothing. It doesn't prevent me from sniffing the traffic between your server and your client (especially if I am the client, cause I have to decrypt that info for it to be usable anyways), it doesn't stop me from using a decompiler for flash, it doesn't give you any level of security greater then javascript obfuscation, which i might point out I feel is also worthless.
What really protects you is using well written server side code. Being able to read my javascript isn't going to give you any more insight into how to exploit my php page then just looking at what is getting sent via firebug. It wont save me if I'm not checking for sql injection and doing all that other best practices stuff.
If a company wants to protect their source code from being read on a web page, they really have a fundamental misunderstanding on how the web works. Next they will be suing for people hyperlinking to their site, or calling the google cache copyright infringement.
But again, if you have any web page examples (obviously a application such as a small 3d game would be better done in flash/java/native application), I'd be happy to give it a shot and explain why and how I feel it could be done better without flash.
I keep hearing about all this cross browser stuff. Yet everything I write just seems to work in every major browser without any issues. I guess it all comes down to the developer.
For most of my ajax work I have started using JQuery. It is powerful and has a nice feel to it. Everything you do with it works on all major browsers. I of course design my sites to function first without any javascript or css, then I tack the javascript on top to add that level of 'cool' the customer wants. You can't do that with flash. The desginer decided red text on a green background was the way to go, well with flash you are screwed if you are red/green colorblind. With html/css/javascript, this is no issue. Are you nearly blind and the developer thought 8pt font was good for the content? Well you better hope he decided to give you a button in flash to grow the font, because you are screwed. Unless it was done using html/css, then it is a simple matter of using the browser to increase the font size. What if you are totally blind? Are there even flash screen readers out there?
It is not that I ignore the solutions. I understand them and I've even done work with them. However, I have found that in 99% of the cases the uses is a bad choice. It adds un-needed complexity, development time, and a whole range of issues. When I develop a website I can tell my clients that if the customer goes to the site with IE6/7/8, firefox 2/3, safari, iphones, opera, links, etc that it will work. I only have to do the work once and without the user having to install anything or have the latest versions of anything. This decreases my costs and the clients costs. With flash I can not do that, I have to do the work multiple times, once in flash, once in html/css/javascript.
This reminds me of the time I was told I needed to get with the asp/asp.net world because php/java was dying for web work. As long as I can keep showing good technical reasons for using the technology I use AND keep the costs cheaper then the proprietary alternatives, I'm going to win the job.
I've seen good flash work. For example there was a drum kit builder I ran across where you could select drums, change colors, locations, etc. It was done really well and would of been a messy project to do with javascript. Another great example might be a 3d view of a car that lets you adjust options via a menu system.
I'm also a fan of flash games. It lowers the level of entry for game writers and performs well. However, most of the flash people want to do seems to be in places where it simply does not belong. For example site navigation, or content.
I remember trying to look up local car dealerships in my area to buy a new car. I couldn't stand how every site needed to pre-load, play music (with no option to turn off) and animate with sound every single content switch. I just wanted to look at what was on their lot, I wanted to open up the items I was interested in on separate tabs so I could compare them. The experience was so horrible I ended up just visiting the dealers (of course maybe that was their idea....)
I have talked quite a few companies out of using flash while consulting for them. I have used many legitimate reasons. Accessibility for the disabled, backwards compatibility, not using a business model dependent on a 3rd parties proprietary software, and the general annoyance of most users when they encounter a flash based website. I have found that a nice clean site developed with good web standards can do 99% of what most people want to do with flash. It will fail better on older browsers, it will load faster (in most cases), and it will be more usable by the customer with the least amount of work (larger fonts, screen readers, alternate color schemes, opening windows in new tabs, bookmarking, etc).
IMHO, companies that choose to use flash do so because they don't have the resources to see there are better choices AND they already know flash.
Ya, I've had bad luck with a lot of things on ubuntu amd64. In fact the only 64bit distro I had good luck with was gentoo (and that is saying something). For now I stick with ubuntu 32bit.
The difference between your lunch being delicious (to you) and god existing is that you are not claiming your lunch is delicious to everyone. Religion states that what they believe is real without a doubt. They will tell you that disagreement is wrong and that you are wrong.
Would you claim that your lunch is absolutely delicious? That anyone who disagrees is wrong and will spend the rest of their life in darkness, never being happy and their eternal soul will burn? I hope your lunch did not have black olives, cause I hate those.
If you make a claim "God does indeed exist" then you have a burden of proof. If i said "I am a master of unarmed combat using mind bullets.", I have a burden of proof. it is not up to you to disprove I have mind bullets, but rather up to me to prove I do. To cop out an say "well it was just an ideal and not something 'real'" is the same as saying "it simply does not exist". So you are saying that religion is fantasy just as your lunch tasting delicious. It is all in your head.
That is pure faith. I can only have faith as I can not test your lunch. So just like I ask of religious people to prove god exists, I'm going to ask you to prove your lunch was delicious. The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the doubter.
However, if I wanted to verify anything in science that I take on what you consider faith. I can.
If I doubt Antarctica exists. Well I can go there. If i doubt the world is round, I can travel the world and see for myself. If I doubt that bleach mixed with aluminum in a plastic bottle will be dangerous, well I can try that too. This is evidence, something religion simply is lacking.
I can't prove god exists, at least not in a way that will be meaningful to me right now. I can prove it, but I'll be dead and at that point it is just too late.
You just a group of people by its most vocal majority. 90% of Christians could be wonderful people like yourself, but if you can't shut up those most vocal people who claim to be your leaders, don't be surprised to be grouped with them.
Stereotypes are usually the way they are for a reason.
Wow, I did all that stuff because I wanted to help people. Not because I was afraid of a fiery hell or wanted a wonderful afterlife.
My experience is that people who help in the name of religion are doing more of a look at me thing. They want to look good and want to go to heaven. It is a peer system like highschool. They want to be cool and in the 'in' crowd. So they go along.
Beyond that, a lot of their 'good' work is used just to push their agenda. Will that christian homeless shelter take in a homeless man who refuses to embrace god? The ones around here require you to console with a church leader and read the bible. Which is why I choose not to donate my money or time to them.
Religion has done nothing but harm this world and prevent our growth and a species. It is responsible for countless deaths, unimaginable amounts of lost culture, history, knowledge, and continues to drag us down until we are in yet another dark ages.
Belief in a god is not fundamentally bad. Organizing that belief is.
Using this thought process though means god exists in a pre-existing universe in which he creates his own, which must be bound by laws and thus he is not really all powerful.
Of course a good developer of games would put rules in place to control what he can and can't do once the game has 'gone live'. So maybe god respects the laws of physics simply because he wants to.
Another thought is the first thing the christian god did was create light, he didn't create the rules to govern how light behaved, so maybe physics has always existed, even before god did anything.
It's all just a series of philosophical questions about an imaginary being. I do like pondering the meaning of the universe.
Slashdot Mirror
Last time I hand wrote a custom ajax file upload it took me about 10 minutes. Most of that was testing. Just a html form, some nice css (already there prior to starting as I have a guy who does design), a quick ajax function in jquery and display a nice uploading bar, and php to accept and store the file.
I use jquery and php. I can write good solid cross platform code just as fast and probably cheaper then most of those 'design' oriented companies that use flash/flex.
Not only that but I can see these things.
1) Your customers will not need to download any plugins
2) My code will work on all major browsers
3) my code will work (without extra work) on all browsers including all cell phone browsers
4) My code is compressed and a lot of the time smaller then the flash equivalent.
5) The framework I am using is open source and is not dependent on the original developer for support.
6) anyone who has done any web development in the last 5 years will be able to quickly understand and support my code.
Flex is not bad, but it is not going to kill everything out there. Silverlight is going to be slow going and probably die a microsoft death once they realize that to make it work they have to support all browsers and operating systems. Paying some linux guys to do a half ass shitty port doesn't count.
Of course there is a mac client, but maybe they will get pissed at mac and pull support (they have done it before).
These kind of short sighted approaches hurt innovation in general. They keep us using the same old crap forever.
Why not put a popup on your site that says "Please do not ever upgrade your system, it will break our website and we are cheap bastards"
Not to mention this situation. I decided to develop a new browser or even OS. Perhaps I think I can go one better then anything else out there. If it is an open standard that I can support, then I can choose to support it. With flash/sliverlight/etc I do not have that choice. It is that vendors choice to support me. This hurts innovation in general.
Until there is a vital security flaw in that version of the silverlight/flash/flex runtime. then you have to move.
I would gladly accept something better then html/css + javascript + jquery + php, I just don't see anything promising right now. Although I have toyed with the idea of using extJS (yajsf)
Flash = no end user choice, no open source tools, no transparency (in a design sense, not a physical one), no accessibility, currently a vendor lock in to a single company (do you want to use GNASH?), currently has large security flaws (according to recent slashdot articles), I can keep going on.
Javascript = consistent, well tested, poorly designed language. When used properly it is fully transparent to the end user, even allowing sites to work without it. Security flaws are now browser based and you can get browsers from many different vendors, you have no vendor lock in when you use javascript and there are tons of open source tools to make javascript development easy to do right (thank you jquery).
On a side note, java is now almost 100% open source, giving even more reason to use that for more application type programs.
And yes, there is a difference between an application and a web page. That window is shrinking, but even when it finally no longer exists there will be better options then flash.
The main reason javascript was hated was because of poor browser standards for javascript and the DOM. It was also hated becuase of the way javascript was used (which is only one of the many reasons I dislike flash). Finally, it was hated because of the bandwidth limitations of modems. All of these issues are mostly resolved though javascript frameworks, better browser support and broadband.
Regardless however, I for one do not want to use google flash maps or google flash mail. I love the flexibility real web design gives me. The only people this lock end benefits are the large companys who want to dictate how the computer world is ran. The only people who lose is everyone else.
Again, you are giving an example of an application, not a web page. Something like that might be better done in flash. 99% of everything else is not. How often is flash used like that? Not very often. Flash is mostly used in places it does not belong. Drop down menus, main content of sites, submission forms, preloading images, etc. It simply does not belong in web design. It is a very locked in way of developing some tiny interesting applications, and should be used for nothing more.
What are 99% of websites? They are shopping carts, blogs, rss feeds, news, about us, forms, etc. All of that is perfectly done with just html/css and php/whatever. Javascript can make it better without losing any backwards compatibility and giving the user a lot of control over what happens. Flash can not.
As for security, you simply can not control what happens on the clients machine. You might want to, but it is impossible. Having actually tried to write XSS/script attacks, it is much harder then you make it sound. I'd be better off infecting my target with malware though direct means (email and social engineering)
But if that is the only reasons you have, it is not a convincing argument imho. I'm not going to start making my users login to a flash app instead of a good old html form for their security. SSL, html, and server side validation are enough for me.
I think ajax is a better choice for 99% of every example of flash web design out there. Yes there are things flash/java can do that you can't do with html/css/javascript/some server side code, but those things are not really focused on web design.
As I've pointed out, I wouldn't want to write a game using ajax, flash works great for that. I can't make something like youtube easily without flash. But for almost every other use I can think of, ajax is better.
I would find it easier to give you more concrete explanations if I had examples of things you think flash does that merit its use in web design over html/css/javascript/and some server side code (php, asp, jsp, whatever).
You did give one example, hiding source code. This shows me already that you are missing one fundamental truth about the web. You can't use obscurity for security. Hiding the source code in the case of a webpage does nothing. It doesn't prevent me from sniffing the traffic between your server and your client (especially if I am the client, cause I have to decrypt that info for it to be usable anyways), it doesn't stop me from using a decompiler for flash, it doesn't give you any level of security greater then javascript obfuscation, which i might point out I feel is also worthless.
What really protects you is using well written server side code. Being able to read my javascript isn't going to give you any more insight into how to exploit my php page then just looking at what is getting sent via firebug. It wont save me if I'm not checking for sql injection and doing all that other best practices stuff.
If a company wants to protect their source code from being read on a web page, they really have a fundamental misunderstanding on how the web works. Next they will be suing for people hyperlinking to their site, or calling the google cache copyright infringement.
But again, if you have any web page examples (obviously a application such as a small 3d game would be better done in flash/java/native application), I'd be happy to give it a shot and explain why and how I feel it could be done better without flash.
I keep hearing about all this cross browser stuff. Yet everything I write just seems to work in every major browser without any issues. I guess it all comes down to the developer.
For most of my ajax work I have started using JQuery. It is powerful and has a nice feel to it. Everything you do with it works on all major browsers. I of course design my sites to function first without any javascript or css, then I tack the javascript on top to add that level of 'cool' the customer wants. You can't do that with flash. The desginer decided red text on a green background was the way to go, well with flash you are screwed if you are red/green colorblind. With html/css/javascript, this is no issue. Are you nearly blind and the developer thought 8pt font was good for the content? Well you better hope he decided to give you a button in flash to grow the font, because you are screwed. Unless it was done using html/css, then it is a simple matter of using the browser to increase the font size. What if you are totally blind? Are there even flash screen readers out there?
It is not that I ignore the solutions. I understand them and I've even done work with them. However, I have found that in 99% of the cases the uses is a bad choice. It adds un-needed complexity, development time, and a whole range of issues. When I develop a website I can tell my clients that if the customer goes to the site with IE6/7/8, firefox 2/3, safari, iphones, opera, links, etc that it will work. I only have to do the work once and without the user having to install anything or have the latest versions of anything. This decreases my costs and the clients costs. With flash I can not do that, I have to do the work multiple times, once in flash, once in html/css/javascript.
This reminds me of the time I was told I needed to get with the asp/asp.net world because php/java was dying for web work. As long as I can keep showing good technical reasons for using the technology I use AND keep the costs cheaper then the proprietary alternatives, I'm going to win the job.
I've seen good flash work. For example there was a drum kit builder I ran across where you could select drums, change colors, locations, etc. It was done really well and would of been a messy project to do with javascript. Another great example might be a 3d view of a car that lets you adjust options via a menu system.
I'm also a fan of flash games. It lowers the level of entry for game writers and performs well. However, most of the flash people want to do seems to be in places where it simply does not belong. For example site navigation, or content.
I remember trying to look up local car dealerships in my area to buy a new car. I couldn't stand how every site needed to pre-load, play music (with no option to turn off) and animate with sound every single content switch. I just wanted to look at what was on their lot, I wanted to open up the items I was interested in on separate tabs so I could compare them. The experience was so horrible I ended up just visiting the dealers (of course maybe that was their idea....)
You realize you can white list your own sites in NoScript. I'm a developer who uses NoScript on my browser. I have no problems.
I'd love to use Camino. I need foxmarks, firebug, something like 'distrust' and stumble. Give me that and I'd switch in a heart beat.
I have talked quite a few companies out of using flash while consulting for them. I have used many legitimate reasons. Accessibility for the disabled, backwards compatibility, not using a business model dependent on a 3rd parties proprietary software, and the general annoyance of most users when they encounter a flash based website. I have found that a nice clean site developed with good web standards can do 99% of what most people want to do with flash. It will fail better on older browsers, it will load faster (in most cases), and it will be more usable by the customer with the least amount of work (larger fonts, screen readers, alternate color schemes, opening windows in new tabs, bookmarking, etc).
IMHO, companies that choose to use flash do so because they don't have the resources to see there are better choices AND they already know flash.
Ya, I've had bad luck with a lot of things on ubuntu amd64. In fact the only 64bit distro I had good luck with was gentoo (and that is saying something). For now I stick with ubuntu 32bit.
The difference between your lunch being delicious (to you) and god existing is that you are not claiming your lunch is delicious to everyone. Religion states that what they believe is real without a doubt. They will tell you that disagreement is wrong and that you are wrong.
Would you claim that your lunch is absolutely delicious? That anyone who disagrees is wrong and will spend the rest of their life in darkness, never being happy and their eternal soul will burn? I hope your lunch did not have black olives, cause I hate those.
If you make a claim "God does indeed exist" then you have a burden of proof. If i said "I am a master of unarmed combat using mind bullets.", I have a burden of proof. it is not up to you to disprove I have mind bullets, but rather up to me to prove I do. To cop out an say "well it was just an ideal and not something 'real'" is the same as saying "it simply does not exist". So you are saying that religion is fantasy just as your lunch tasting delicious. It is all in your head.
That is pure faith. I can only have faith as I can not test your lunch. So just like I ask of religious people to prove god exists, I'm going to ask you to prove your lunch was delicious. The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the doubter.
However, if I wanted to verify anything in science that I take on what you consider faith. I can.
If I doubt Antarctica exists. Well I can go there. If i doubt the world is round, I can travel the world and see for myself. If I doubt that bleach mixed with aluminum in a plastic bottle will be dangerous, well I can try that too. This is evidence, something religion simply is lacking.
I can't prove god exists, at least not in a way that will be meaningful to me right now. I can prove it, but I'll be dead and at that point it is just too late.
Sorry, I intended the first sentence to read "You judge .." not just.
You just a group of people by its most vocal majority. 90% of Christians could be wonderful people like yourself, but if you can't shut up those most vocal people who claim to be your leaders, don't be surprised to be grouped with them.
Stereotypes are usually the way they are for a reason.
very nice post. Very entertaining. I don't have much else to say.
Freedom of religion is a slippery slope that leads to nationalized forced religious states. At least that is the goal of the christian religion.
Wow, I did all that stuff because I wanted to help people. Not because I was afraid of a fiery hell or wanted a wonderful afterlife.
My experience is that people who help in the name of religion are doing more of a look at me thing. They want to look good and want to go to heaven. It is a peer system like highschool. They want to be cool and in the 'in' crowd. So they go along.
Beyond that, a lot of their 'good' work is used just to push their agenda. Will that christian homeless shelter take in a homeless man who refuses to embrace god? The ones around here require you to console with a church leader and read the bible. Which is why I choose not to donate my money or time to them.
I just wanted to do something good.
Belief without evidence is itself ridiculous. I admire those of us who can just say "I do not know".
There are also hundreds if not thousands of people who believe (thanks to the US education system of abstinence) that standing on your head and drinking mountain dew is a surefire way to prevent STD's and pregnancy. http://southernhiv.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/in-florida-mountain-dew-will-keep-you-from-getting-pregnant/
Religion has done nothing but harm this world and prevent our growth and a species. It is responsible for countless deaths, unimaginable amounts of lost culture, history, knowledge, and continues to drag us down until we are in yet another dark ages.
Belief in a god is not fundamentally bad. Organizing that belief is.
Using this thought process though means god exists in a pre-existing universe in which he creates his own, which must be bound by laws and thus he is not really all powerful.
Of course a good developer of games would put rules in place to control what he can and can't do once the game has 'gone live'. So maybe god respects the laws of physics simply because he wants to.
Another thought is the first thing the christian god did was create light, he didn't create the rules to govern how light behaved, so maybe physics has always existed, even before god did anything.
It's all just a series of philosophical questions about an imaginary being. I do like pondering the meaning of the universe.