Show me your usage of MVC with Cocoa/Core Data/KVC and CoreGraphics and I'll judge whether or not you're a "damn good programmers."
Yes just throw a load of big words in there, feel better now?
I'm not saying I'm as good as everyone doing "hardcore" programming, so I don't know why you are being so defensive. I was defending us Flash programmers against comments that insinuate "if you program in Flash, you're a bad programmer".
I have to say that's very self-righteous of you to believe your judgement is any more important than mine.
I guess you might as well say: If you don't like heroin, just don't use it.
Ummm yep, that's exactly what I am saying. Why, is Flash an addiction?
I program AS3 but I don't really go for all these whizzy Flash-based sites, because most of them are rubbish. But I don't see what all the commotion is about. All I know is that it will mean that we will have the possibility of creating content, worthwhile content, for the iPhone.
If it's going to happen it will happen, just whining about it isn't going to change anything.
Nothing is wrong with his computer. My Multicore CPU with 4GB Ram pegs at 99% for the main core since Flash isn't Multicore aware and furthermore even with the 32bit shared libs for 64bit Linux it's butt ass slow.
Flash routinely locks up Opera 9.52 and 9.60 beta.
When pressed for the 64 bit clean Flash on Linux we get a retort about the 32 libs are just fine.
Well guess what: The same bull will happen with OS X 10.6.
My Mac is an iMac 2.4 Ghz - 1 MB RAM. The Diablo site mentioned uses both cores and virtually equally at 35% usage.
I don't know why only one core of yours maxes out at 100%. I know virtually nothing about Flash and its ability to use more than one core, but I find it interesting that my Mac uses both cores virtually equally on both of the Flash sites mentioned above.
Am I a big Flash fan? Yes and no. Do I want to see the cool stuff on many of the sites? Yes. Do I want more open-standards based sites rather than Flash? Yes.
Put Flash on the iPhone IF it is greatly optimized (if it can be), and give it the ability to be turned off, or only used similar to YouTube.
Some of you just aren't thinking it through (or perhaps have your own personal agenda for wanting Flash, i.e. Flash devs)
EVERYONE JUST READ THIS: The more broadly available Flash is, the more broadly it will be used (and abused, as is often the case now). That means more and more sites that I can't/won't be able to use. So yes, it *does* affect others.
If a new, popular platform exists that does not and will not run Flash, then more sites will be forced to consider using standards-based, non-proprietary, non-sandbox-bypassing, non-CPU-gorging technology.
I guess you might as well say: If you don't like heroin, just don't use it. The problem is there are a lot of ramifications that may affect others.
Lots of fun, but totally impractical on the iPhone. Only a dedicated iPhone version would be worth the trouble of "fingering" through the easter eggs.
gc
Example of a website that looks amazing, and can only be realized in Flash, sorry for not making that really clear
The site you post too deomnstrates that on the level of animated websites, nothing comes near flash for now. Sure, it taks up too much resources and not all Flash content makes sense on the iPhone, but it's not a bad thing over the entire line imo.
To all the detractors of Flash, yes, Flash is designed for desktop computers and is quite resource intensive. But like I said on my earlier comment, Flash can be designed to be activated on per-needed-basis, much like YouTube is.
Let's face it. Whether you like Flash or not, Flash is everywhere. iPhone alone will not destroy Flash because it is pre-installed on just about every other smartphones and computers.
Look, I would like to see other crappy technologies go away, such as MMS. But whenever I get MMS, I have to click on that stupid weblink then type in stupid code to view the image. That's poor user experience. If I stumble upon a Flash embedded video (other than YouTube), I want to view it instead of emailing the link to myself to watch it later on a Mac.
Hey... I can get the real version of Frogger for free as a Flash app, in the app store it's $10 for a crappy version
Besides, if Apple puts a Flash on/off switch in the Settings then why not? just leave it off.
Daring Fireball's Gruber has stated that for that exact competive reason to the App Store and Cocoa programming Apple will not include Flash on the iPhone.
NO FLASH. I dont need flash, dont want flash, havent missed it for the year and a half I have had my iPhone. If flash does come to the iPhone we need to be able to turn it off. If not I dont think I'll be updating
To all the detractors of Flash, yes, Flash is designed for desktop computers and is quite resource intensive. But like I said on my earlier comment, Flash can be designed to be activated on per-needed-basis, much like YouTube is.
Let's face it. Whether you like Flash or not, Flash is everywhere. iPhone alone will not destroy Flash because it is pre-installed on just about every other smartphones and computers.
Look, I would like to see other crappy technologies go away, such as MMS. But whenever I get MMS, I have to click on that stupid weblink then type in stupid code to view the image. That's poor user experience. If I stumble upon a Flash embedded video (other than YouTube), I want to view it instead of emailing the link to myself to watch it later on a Mac.
Flash is not available on "just about every smartphone", stop peddling that lie and even the flash that is on some cellphones is useless, that's not the kind of flash we need.
Flash Player 10 uses more extensive hardware acceleration so there's a chance it can use the PowerVR graphics chipset in the iphone to avoid being sluggish.
One reason that Flash is so CPU intensive is that it is doing animations just now without using graphics hardware. If you've ever tried to play a game in software mode you can see why it's a bad idea to do that. Dropping the frame rate helps but for smoothness, people sometimes set the clip at 60fps.
In the end, people who advertise certain types of sites such as sites dedicated to a movie or game launch like to produce a unique artistic site so that people see something cool. There is no other API so well supported that allows them to do this.
The point about Apple not allowing external APIs is probably the most important reason why they won't allow it because they seem fairly paranoid about security issues. If the Flash player has a vulnerability, they have to wait on Adobe fixing it or risk iphones all over the world being exploited. At the very least a mechanism to disable the plugin would be necessary.
Safari already has this ability so it's not a huge problem. Being able to disable plugins on an individual basis would be good though so that disabling Flash doesn't disable Quicktime.
First of all, I can understand that people have differing opinions on the utility of Flash being available on the iPhone, but what I don't get is why some folks (selfishly in my opinion) insist on limiting everyone's choice in the matter. This goes for issues other than flash as well. If you don't happen to like a specific feature, and the feature can be easily disabled from a preference panel, then what is the real problem?
And no, I don't think it encourages poor design any more than Ajax does. There will always be poor use of certain techniques, and the fact is that a lot of the web uses flash, so it should be included on a mobile web device.
There are two reasons for the absence of Flash on the iPhone.
The first is technical.
Flash is quite an old technology. A lot of Flash functionality relies upon the CPU to do all the heavy lifting. I have seen some Flash sourcecode, and a lot of it was rendering spans of pixels by the CPU. Many desktop flash sites would not work at all on a phone's CPU. On the iPhone there would be a dramatic loss of performance in viewing HTML and viewing Flash. At the same time it would drive down battery life.
Flash 10 promises more rasterization on the GPU. But I am quite skeptical.
Technically the best way forwards would be a Adobe developing a variant of Flash which was designed for a mobile GPU device. Flash ES. This would benefit the whole mobile market. Not just Apple.
The second reason is commercial. Apple does not want to pay Adobe - so that Adobe can drink Apple's milkshake. If Flash came to iPhone. Who would benefit more. Adobe or Apple?
I may be missing something, because this looks to me like the entire story is complete BS.
So I'll let you guys fill me in.
1st, you CAN'T have flash be an app in the app store that you download.
Adobe tried to describe what they were doing before like that, and it's complete bullshit.
Flash is NOT an application.
2nd Flash is something that needs to run from the browser, as you surf the web. (a plugin?)
That means Adobe thinks they are developing something that they will destribute from the app store that would become part of the iPhone's O.S. that the web browser would use. So, Adobe thinks they are going to mess with the iPhone browser??????
And they think all they have to do is wait for Apple to approve this?
3rd They can't be supplying their own browser, as an app, that has flash capability as that would violate the SDK agreements as I understand them.
Sorry if this has been covered by others in the thread and I missed it.
BUt I'd love to hear how anyone else can see any way any of this could be true.
This just looks to me like a more descriptive example of how Adobe has no frickin idea what they are talking about......
Daring Fireball's Gruber has stated that for that exact competive reason to the App Store and Cocoa programming Apple will not include Flash on the iPhone.
3rd They can't be supplying their own browser, as an app, that has flash capability as that would violate the SDK agreements as I understand them.
Which part of the SDK does it directly violate. Reading Gruber's take on it I don't think Apple would allow Adobe Flash on the iPhone which would be covered under the parts of the SDK rules that basically say "because we say so", but beyond that I have seen nothing in the SDK ruels that would prevent it.
Your app is allowed to call WebKit (many apps utilize it) so if Adobe could create an app that started Flash, which then called WebKit (note: not mobile Safari) around Adobe's own browser front end. There is also the possibility for server-side browsers, like Skyfire, that will deal with all the various webcode on their end and then repackage it in a simpler, smaller package to send from the server to your device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog
hmmm... interesting and makes perfect sense. But I still need the real version of Frogger.
It would be nice if Nintendo released all their old games to the App Store. They could make a killing, but I understand their desire not to pull focus from their portable consoles. Who owns Atari? I think those games could be popular, too. I know that I'd buy Galaga for the iPhone in a heartbeat.
Javascript and HTML won't mature, they're past maturation and they move onto decomposition.
You will be disappointed to see how widely Javascript is being used in the coming years...
Quote:
Really. ActionScript 3 is what JavaScript *should* be if it was able to actually follow the ECMAScript bleeding edge evolution. Which it is not, since it is plagued with backward compatibility. Actually, the single best thing to come to JavaScript lately was JiT compilation - something that has been available for years on Java and C#. And JiT actually came to JS from Flash...
JiT will be part of the "Javascript revolution"
Quote:
Currently, programming in JS is an utter mess. You must pile librairies unto librairies to hope for some cross-browser compatibility. And eventually, these librairies are even heavier than the Flash runtime. Not to mention the various problems when you try to use several librairies together, such as several depending on jQuery and Prototype in the same program.
Very true unfortunately.
Quote:
As for HTML, that's not better. The language was never meant to build desktop-like applications. And it shows. Badly.
And CSS is the worst. Maintaining a site to look *exactly* the same on IE6, IE7, IE8, FF2, FF3, Chrome, Opera and Safari is a real nightmare! And some clients still ask for IE5.5 compatibility... And it's going to get worse in the future, Apple is already adding custom extensions to WebKit, we're heading back to the old browser war...
But Apple wants innovation to spread to all browsers and all platforms...
Quote:
Really, JS + CSS + HTML is obsolete for anything but the good old web. It's not meant to build applications. You complain about Flash being a ressource hog? Have you tried using GMail on an old PC or on a browser without a super-optimized JS engine? And GMail is written by the unlimited ressources at Google and has a very streamlined interface. Yahoo Mail is far worse. And keeping these applications maintainable is a struggle against the platform rather than coming naturally with it.
The future lies with applications built on a markup language (enriched XML) and a modern language. I don't really care if it's Flex, Silverlight or something built on Ruby+XML/YAML. Really. But anything but the current mess.
Javascript is still more compatible and standards-based. All browsers have it built-in, not as a plug-in.
Comments
Show me your usage of MVC with Cocoa/Core Data/KVC and CoreGraphics and I'll judge whether or not you're a "damn good programmers."
I'm not saying I'm as good as everyone doing "hardcore" programming, so I don't know why you are being so defensive. I was defending us Flash programmers against comments that insinuate "if you program in Flash, you're a bad programmer".
I have to say that's very self-righteous of you to believe your judgement is any more important than mine.
I guess you might as well say: If you don't like heroin, just don't use it.
Ummm yep, that's exactly what I am saying. Why, is Flash an addiction?
I program AS3 but I don't really go for all these whizzy Flash-based sites, because most of them are rubbish. But I don't see what all the commotion is about. All I know is that it will mean that we will have the possibility of creating content, worthwhile content, for the iPhone.
If it's going to happen it will happen, just whining about it isn't going to change anything.
Nothing is wrong with his computer. My Multicore CPU with 4GB Ram pegs at 99% for the main core since Flash isn't Multicore aware and furthermore even with the 32bit shared libs for 64bit Linux it's butt ass slow.
Flash routinely locks up Opera 9.52 and 9.60 beta.
When pressed for the 64 bit clean Flash on Linux we get a retort about the 32 libs are just fine.
Well guess what: The same bull will happen with OS X 10.6.
http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2....html#comments
My Mac is an iMac 2.4 Ghz - 1 MB RAM. The Diablo site mentioned uses both cores and virtually equally at 35% usage.
I don't know why only one core of yours maxes out at 100%. I know virtually nothing about Flash and its ability to use more than one core, but I find it interesting that my Mac uses both cores virtually equally on both of the Flash sites mentioned above.
Am I a big Flash fan? Yes and no. Do I want to see the cool stuff on many of the sites? Yes. Do I want more open-standards based sites rather than Flash? Yes.
Put Flash on the iPhone IF it is greatly optimized (if it can be), and give it the ability to be turned off, or only used similar to YouTube.
Just my thoughts...
Absolutely
Ridiculous!
A minority shouldn't be allowed to keep the majority from using what most of us think is a useful tool.
Sure, it should be enabled and disabled as the user requires, but other than that, it should be here.
Some of you just aren't thinking it through (or perhaps have your own personal agenda for wanting Flash, i.e. Flash devs)
EVERYONE JUST READ THIS: The more broadly available Flash is, the more broadly it will be used (and abused, as is often the case now). That means more and more sites that I can't/won't be able to use. So yes, it *does* affect others.
If a new, popular platform exists that does not and will not run Flash, then more sites will be forced to consider using standards-based, non-proprietary, non-sandbox-bypassing, non-CPU-gorging technology.
I guess you might as well say: If you don't like heroin, just don't use it. The problem is there are a lot of ramifications that may affect others.
I have no agenda. Do you?
I would like to see Flash.
You aren't giving good reasons why not.
And that's an example of... ???
How about this:
http://unscrewamerica.org/
Lots of fun, but totally impractical on the iPhone. Only a dedicated iPhone version would be worth the trouble of "fingering" through the easter eggs.
gc
Example of a website that looks amazing, and can only be realized in Flash, sorry for not making that really clear
The site you post too deomnstrates that on the level of animated websites, nothing comes near flash for now. Sure, it taks up too much resources and not all Flash content makes sense on the iPhone, but it's not a bad thing over the entire line imo.
Let's face it. Whether you like Flash or not, Flash is everywhere. iPhone alone will not destroy Flash because it is pre-installed on just about every other smartphones and computers.
Look, I would like to see other crappy technologies go away, such as MMS. But whenever I get MMS, I have to click on that stupid weblink then type in stupid code to view the image. That's poor user experience. If I stumble upon a Flash embedded video (other than YouTube), I want to view it instead of emailing the link to myself to watch it later on a Mac.
Hey... I can get the real version of Frogger for free as a Flash app, in the app store it's $10 for a crappy version
Besides, if Apple puts a Flash on/off switch in the Settings then why not? just leave it off.
Daring Fireball's Gruber has stated that for that exact competive reason to the App Store and Cocoa programming Apple will not include Flash on the iPhone.
To all the detractors of Flash, yes, Flash is designed for desktop computers and is quite resource intensive. But like I said on my earlier comment, Flash can be designed to be activated on per-needed-basis, much like YouTube is.
Let's face it. Whether you like Flash or not, Flash is everywhere. iPhone alone will not destroy Flash because it is pre-installed on just about every other smartphones and computers.
Look, I would like to see other crappy technologies go away, such as MMS. But whenever I get MMS, I have to click on that stupid weblink then type in stupid code to view the image. That's poor user experience. If I stumble upon a Flash embedded video (other than YouTube), I want to view it instead of emailing the link to myself to watch it later on a Mac.
Flash is not available on "just about every smartphone", stop peddling that lie and even the flash that is on some cellphones is useless, that's not the kind of flash we need.
One reason that Flash is so CPU intensive is that it is doing animations just now without using graphics hardware. If you've ever tried to play a game in software mode you can see why it's a bad idea to do that. Dropping the frame rate helps but for smoothness, people sometimes set the clip at 60fps.
In the end, people who advertise certain types of sites such as sites dedicated to a movie or game launch like to produce a unique artistic site so that people see something cool. There is no other API so well supported that allows them to do this.
The point about Apple not allowing external APIs is probably the most important reason why they won't allow it because they seem fairly paranoid about security issues. If the Flash player has a vulnerability, they have to wait on Adobe fixing it or risk iphones all over the world being exploited. At the very least a mechanism to disable the plugin would be necessary.
Safari already has this ability so it's not a huge problem. Being able to disable plugins on an individual basis would be good though so that disabling Flash doesn't disable Quicktime.
And no, I don't think it encourages poor design any more than Ajax does. There will always be poor use of certain techniques, and the fact is that a lot of the web uses flash, so it should be included on a mobile web device.
The first is technical.
Flash is quite an old technology. A lot of Flash functionality relies upon the CPU to do all the heavy lifting. I have seen some Flash sourcecode, and a lot of it was rendering spans of pixels by the CPU. Many desktop flash sites would not work at all on a phone's CPU. On the iPhone there would be a dramatic loss of performance in viewing HTML and viewing Flash. At the same time it would drive down battery life.
Flash 10 promises more rasterization on the GPU. But I am quite skeptical.
Technically the best way forwards would be a Adobe developing a variant of Flash which was designed for a mobile GPU device. Flash ES. This would benefit the whole mobile market. Not just Apple.
The second reason is commercial. Apple does not want to pay Adobe - so that Adobe can drink Apple's milkshake. If Flash came to iPhone. Who would benefit more. Adobe or Apple?
C.
So I'll let you guys fill me in.
1st, you CAN'T have flash be an app in the app store that you download.
Adobe tried to describe what they were doing before like that, and it's complete bullshit.
Flash is NOT an application.
2nd Flash is something that needs to run from the browser, as you surf the web. (a plugin?)
That means Adobe thinks they are developing something that they will destribute from the app store that would become part of the iPhone's O.S. that the web browser would use. So, Adobe thinks they are going to mess with the iPhone browser??????
And they think all they have to do is wait for Apple to approve this?
3rd They can't be supplying their own browser, as an app, that has flash capability as that would violate the SDK agreements as I understand them.
Sorry if this has been covered by others in the thread and I missed it.
BUt I'd love to hear how anyone else can see any way any of this could be true.
This just looks to me like a more descriptive example of how Adobe has no frickin idea what they are talking about......
Daring Fireball's Gruber has stated that for that exact competive reason to the App Store and Cocoa programming Apple will not include Flash on the iPhone.
hmmm... interesting and makes perfect sense. But I still need the real version of Frogger.
3rd They can't be supplying their own browser, as an app, that has flash capability as that would violate the SDK agreements as I understand them.
Which part of the SDK does it directly violate. Reading Gruber's take on it I don't think Apple would allow Adobe Flash on the iPhone which would be covered under the parts of the SDK rules that basically say "because we say so", but beyond that I have seen nothing in the SDK ruels that would prevent it.
Your app is allowed to call WebKit (many apps utilize it) so if Adobe could create an app that started Flash, which then called WebKit (note: not mobile Safari) around Adobe's own browser front end. There is also the possibility for server-side browsers, like Skyfire, that will deal with all the various webcode on their end and then repackage it in a simpler, smaller package to send from the server to your device.
hmmm... interesting and makes perfect sense. But I still need the real version of Frogger.
It would be nice if Nintendo released all their old games to the App Store. They could make a killing, but I understand their desire not to pull focus from their portable consoles. Who owns Atari? I think those games could be popular, too. I know that I'd buy Galaga for the iPhone in a heartbeat.
Javascript and HTML won't mature, they're past maturation and they move onto decomposition.
You will be disappointed to see how widely Javascript is being used in the coming years...
Really. ActionScript 3 is what JavaScript *should* be if it was able to actually follow the ECMAScript bleeding edge evolution. Which it is not, since it is plagued with backward compatibility. Actually, the single best thing to come to JavaScript lately was JiT compilation - something that has been available for years on Java and C#. And JiT actually came to JS from Flash...
JiT will be part of the "Javascript revolution"
Currently, programming in JS is an utter mess. You must pile librairies unto librairies to hope for some cross-browser compatibility. And eventually, these librairies are even heavier than the Flash runtime. Not to mention the various problems when you try to use several librairies together, such as several depending on jQuery and Prototype in the same program.
Very true unfortunately.
As for HTML, that's not better. The language was never meant to build desktop-like applications. And it shows. Badly.
And CSS is the worst. Maintaining a site to look *exactly* the same on IE6, IE7, IE8, FF2, FF3, Chrome, Opera and Safari is a real nightmare! And some clients still ask for IE5.5 compatibility... And it's going to get worse in the future, Apple is already adding custom extensions to WebKit, we're heading back to the old browser war...
But Apple wants innovation to spread to all browsers and all platforms...
Really, JS + CSS + HTML is obsolete for anything but the good old web. It's not meant to build applications. You complain about Flash being a ressource hog? Have you tried using GMail on an old PC or on a browser without a super-optimized JS engine? And GMail is written by the unlimited ressources at Google and has a very streamlined interface. Yahoo Mail is far worse. And keeping these applications maintainable is a struggle against the platform rather than coming naturally with it.
The future lies with applications built on a markup language (enriched XML) and a modern language. I don't really care if it's Flex, Silverlight or something built on Ruby+XML/YAML. Really. But anything but the current mess.
Javascript is still more compatible and standards-based. All browsers have it built-in, not as a plug-in.
Which part of the SDK does it directly violate. the iPhone in a
They describe deploying flash as an app.
They can't destribute their own browser to use it, as that would mean the flash app would have to run in the background. (not allowed)
The only alternative, would be to distribute their own browser app that had flash directly built into it. That is not what they are describing.
So..... what they are describing makes them sound like they don't know what they are talking about.