I've been put off Flash jobs

[CaptainNeeder]

Why?

Well its as if Flash is trying to mix it up with the big boys now. i.e. .Net and Java. But its no where close. For example, the language isn't as tight and the tools are lacking.

Anyone agree?

[Cota]

I think for its purpose Flash is just fine. .NET and Java are bulky and slow. Adobe tries to make Flash seem like this kick ass platform, but like I said, for its real purpose, its kick ass.

[yell0wdart]

Why?

Well its as if Flash is trying to mix it up with the big boys now. i.e. .Net and Java. But its no where close. For example, the language isn't as tight and the tools are lacking.

Anyone agree?


Apples to oranges. Flash is really great at client app stuff on the web. There's really no good way to compare .NET or Java to Flash as a web platform. Ultimately Flash is limited by whatever server technologies are being run if it needs to access the server for anything.

As far as desktop apps go I've not seen anything truly ground breaking based off of AIR. I'd like to, but I haven't yet... at least not anything that competes on the same level as JavaFX or .NET (WPF).

I thought this blog post (http://socialmode.com/2008/12/07/javafx-vs-adobe-air-vs-wpfxamlsilverlight/) had an interesting take. He at least gave a fairly neutral break down between the 3 platforms.


.NET and Java are bulky and slow.

Compared to what? Unmanaged C++ or Assembly? They'll have the same overhead as any other JIT compiled or interpreted language. The performance differences are negligible.

When we start seeing the inline C goodness built into AIR put to good use, that might be a different story, but with the current speed of today's processors, most folks wouldn't even know the difference.

[ASWC]

with the current speed of today's processors, most folks wouldn't even know the difference.
I disagree, I've done enough Java development to know that Java is hell slower than Flash. Moreover, every honest Java developer would tell you it's slow as hell. Trying to create a 3D gallery in Java would be just a joke and a waste of time. Flash filled the gap that Java failed to fill in browsers and in my opinion that's where it's still competitive.

ahh, disregard this as I didn't read carefully your post yellowdart. Sorry about that, still waking up I guess...

[yell0wdart]

ahh, disregard this as I didn't read carefully your post yellowdart. Sorry about that, still waking up I guess...

No worries. Sleep deprivation happens... it's a reality in our line of work. :)

[CaptainNeeder]

Apples to oranges. Flash is really great at client app stuff on the web.

Yes I agree, if you want a rich client app then you have little choice except to use Flash.

There's really no good way to compare .NET or Java to Flash as a web platform.

Again, I agree but its not my intention to do that. I'm comparing the platforms from the point of view of the development experience.

My attitude is that the Flash developer experience is so far below Java and .Net that I'm just not going to be one of those people creating rich client apps with Flash. (Unless I'm desperate.)

Thus, Flash as an industrial strength dev environment... 1 person doesn't like this. :)

[ASWC]

Well if you like .net then SilverLight is made for you!

[CyanBlue]

Well... You should be able to compare ActionScript with .NET or Java when Adobe introduces a server side ActionScript... That's more like an Apple to Fuji... ;)

[kkbbcute]

Why?

Well its as if Flash is trying to mix it up with the big boys now. i.e. .Net and Java. But its no where close. For example, the language isn't as tight and the tools are lacking.

Anyone agree?

For what it's supposed to be, Flash is ever bit as competitive as the so called "big boys". You can't just compare them like that, I don't think Java comes with a convinient interface that allows for easy graphic manipulation, a sleek timeline (along with onion skinning!) that allows you to easily create animations, manipulate objects in advanced ways graphically, and other things like that.

Basically its like comparing a ducati with a ferrari, they're not completely the same, sure, they both can drive you around, but in the end, one's a motorcycle while the other is a car; you can't just compare them directly.;)

[CaptainNeeder]

you can't just compare them directly

I think you can compare parts of them directly. I mean, C# and AS both have classes. :D

[yell0wdart]

Yes I agree, if you want a rich client app then you have little choice except to use Flash.

JavaScript/AJAX. Lately, I've been finding myself using JS where I used to use AS/Flash simply because of libraries like jQuery and MooTools that make cross-browser development a non-issue and offer a MUCH lighter footprint while offering similar visual effects and animation.

It's a little more generic, and you get less control than you do with animating by hand in Flash, but it definitely holds water from a usability perspective.

There's also SilverLight as well. We've already been down that road though. If you're into .NET development, though, SilverLight just makes sense to learn. ;)


Well... You should be able to compare ActionScript with .NET or Java when Adobe introduces a server side ActionScript... That's more like an Apple to Fuji... ;)

That sounds pretty sweet. I've been slacking on keeping up with upcoming Adobe stuff. Here's to hoping they nail their server-side tools. They've got some tough competition against libraries like .NET and EJB... I'm hoping they can take a lot of the strong points of each library and incorporate them into AS.


For what it's supposed to be, Flash is ever bit as competitive as the so called "big boys". You can't just compare them like that, I don't think Java comes with a convinient interface that allows for easy graphic manipulation, a sleek timeline (along with onion skinning!) that allows you to easily create animations, manipulate objects in advanced ways graphically, and other things like that.


You also have to consider the intent behind the respective technologies. AS was originally a scripting feature that allowed for some light behavioral scripting in Flash movies. It's evolved to a full OO language since then... and it's still growing.

Platforms like Java and .NET were developed as full-fledged application development platforms.


Basically its like comparing a ducati with a ferrari, they're not completely the same, sure, they both can drive you around, but in the end, one's a motorcycle while the other is a car; you can't just compare them directly.;)

Well said. ;)

[wvxvw]

JavaScript/AJAX. Lately, I've been finding myself using JS where I used to use AS/Flash simply because of libraries like jQuery and MooTools that make cross-browser development a non-issue and offer a MUCH lighter footprint while offering similar visual effects and animation.

I don't see how you can compare visual effects and animation in JS and AS... they are so not similar... and disadvantage of JS is rather an obvious fact, especially in this field... Besides, everything that has to do with client-server communication in general Flash does much better, so, I'd imagine using JS for animation / client-server communication only when there's no AS dev. around... in any other case that's just a waste of time...

[yell0wdart]

I don't see how you can compare visual effects and animation in JS and AS... they are so not similar... and disadvantage of JS is rather an obvious fact, especially in this field...

My point in saying what I said was maybe not as clear as I intended. I tend to use JS for simpler things, like animating accordion menus, or flyouts, sliding content , etc.


Besides, everything that has to do with client-server communication in general Flash does much better, so, I'd imagine using JS for animation / client-server communication only when there's no AS dev. around... in any other case that's just a waste of time...

I think saying that AS > JS at client/server communication is very subjective. Especially while using JS in conjunction with things like ASP.NET AJAX and ASP.NET's event model.

My point was not that JS is as robust as Flash. My point was, for simple things (animating accordion menus, etc), it's not worth the overhead to use Flash when it can be done just as easily with JS while keeping a MUCH smaller footprint on the page.

[wvxvw]

Especially when dealing with .NET / JAVA back-end AS can give a good head start to JS, even if it's SOAP / REST ;) But if it's AMF, then JS, apparently, cannot be even compared... XML processing in AS is way faster then in JS...

I can only see the point in HTML vs Flash, because of indexing and better text search / select options... but if and when JS is used for something more than that... I don't know... I could never find a reason for that... that's just sort of an "old habit" or, maybe, a much bigger market of AJAX programmers as comparing to AS... really, don't know... Compare this to Unity player vs Flash when it comes to 3D... Unity is whole lot better, but there're few using it... Same thing with JPEG2000... it is better than JPEG, but, seems like even Adobe will soon stop supporting it in favor of PNG, which isn't better... it's just happened to be more popular... no other reason.

[ASWC]

Technology is not a factor for a lot of web professional out there and "classic" technology is still a preferred choice for them since they know it very well, it's search engine friendly, it's doing its job very well. And we can also mention that 3D for the web is not a need in most webdesign situation, we could even say that "moving stuff" is not needed either. So yes javascript/AJAX has still many good years up ahead. I personally don't like many of the HUGGGGEEE javascript libraries out there weighting about 500K or more it just becomes ridiculous in my opinion.

[maskedMan]

wvxvw, are you using Unity? I've heard of it, and it looks interesting, but I'm pretty sure my employer isn't about to dive into an unadopted medium, particularly not one that has an entrance fee.

[wvxvw]

At some point they let download their demo code editor... I just tried to do something basic, very basic... But, no, I'm not using it, although it was another reason to start digging into C# direction, I gave up in the middle :) And, after a year long fight with my employers for the upgrade to AS3... you can imagine their reaction if all of a sudden I'd tell them we're going to try a completely different thing, and I don't really know how to use it, but it looks cool :)

EDIT: oh, actually, they simply moved the trial download page.

[yell0wdart]

Especially when dealing with .NET / JAVA back-end AS can give a good head start to JS, even if it's SOAP / REST ;) But if it's AMF, then JS, apparently, cannot be even compared... XML processing in AS is way faster then in JS...

Yea, I definitely see your point there. I've not done as much SOA and SaaS stuff as I'd like to... though in the next year, I may be writing an entire service layer to our portal framework in C# at work.

The thing about JS development in general that I DON'T like is that it's far too transparent and easily broken. There's that extra layer of moving parts. I'd be a little nervous exposing web service calls to JS. I'd probably be more likely to do those web method calls in a compiled environment like C# or AS... so we're definitely in agreement there.

I tend to look at JS as a more "view oriented" tool (assuming we're discussing a MVC or multi-tiered architecture). I tend to like to keep it as dumb as I can and try to keep my JS code's job limited to just manipulating the DOM (in the same way that I like to keep my data layer's job limited to fetching stuff from and writing things to the database).


I can only see the point in HTML vs Flash, because of indexing and better text search / select options... but if and when JS is used for something more than that... I don't know... I could never find a reason for that... that's just sort of an "old habit" or, maybe, a much bigger market of AJAX programmers as comparing to AS... really, don't know... Compare this to Unity player vs Flash when it comes to 3D... Unity is whole lot better, but there're few using it... Same thing with JPEG2000... it is better than JPEG, but, seems like even Adobe will soon stop supporting it in favor of PNG, which isn't better... it's just happened to be more popular... no other reason.

There's also the point that a lot of users on the web just plain don't like Flash. *GASP!* I know. I said it. It's the truth though. It' not always the best choice in terms of usability. :)

I'm obviously not of that persuasion, since I'm posting here, but I like to remind myself of that when I'm working for a client. I'm all for using Flash if they ask for Flash, but I don't like to force them onto a particular platform if it's not the best tool for the job or if it's not adding anything of value to the project.

[yell0wdart]

Technology is not a factor for a lot of web professional out there and "classic" technology is still a preferred choice for them since they know it very well, it's search engine friendly, it's doing its job very well. And we can also mention that 3D for the web is not a need in most webdesign situation, we could even say that "moving stuff" is not needed either. So yes javascript/AJAX has still many good years up ahead. I personally don't like many of the HUGGGGEEE javascript libraries out there weighting about 500K or more it just becomes ridiculous in my opinion.

Agree. 100%. :)

I think that's why I've become such a big fan of jQuery lately. The minimized file is only like 19k. It's super light-weight and offers some pretty robust functionality.