Javascript is not a better platform for applications or games. Look at EA's Command and Conquer online game. It's performance is horrible and it's just a turn based game.
A lot of WEB developers have been forced to learn javascript because it's a standard and you're pigeonholed into it. They are screaming they want better UI frameworks and continued development because everyone knows how awful coding in mishmash of html/javascript is. There is a very vocal community of WEB designers who are screaming for a standardized Javascript display list framework. Give it about 5 years and they'll probably start screaming Javascript is dead and everyone should code for Native Client. Unless internet consumer's have a massive aversion to Flash games which I don't think they do, I don't understand why Adobe is second guessing itself. Convincing Flash developers, that Javascript is a *better* runtime isn't going to work I don't think. Consumer internet application are not written in Flash. Flash is mainly used for games and internal applications with Flex. Saying Javascript is sometimes the better choice, it sounds like Javascript is a better choice for either games or internal RIAs. Neither of which is true. Yah, Javascript is the better choice if you're making a consumer internet applications where users don't want to load Flash for their social networking fix. At this point, there is no good free Javascript UI framework. There is Kendo UI, JQuery UI and Sencha. Only JQuery is free. None of them are as comprehensive as Flex. They don't have containers for one thing. Even if they were as comprehensive, there isn't any good reason to write something in Javascript. The necessary APIs for rich UI's are finite. These equivalent API's are found in Java Swing, Windows UI APIs, Linux UI APIs. The point is that they are finite, there aren't any magical new developments that Javascript will bring. UI APIs are stable. The Flex API is more or less complete. A Javascript equivalent will not be much better. Fundamentally the only scary part of Adobe's announcements is that they sound like: We'll try to monetize Flash If it doesn't work than we can't tell you what's going to happen. We can't tell you we'll open source it. We might just stop developing the API. We might take more aggressive steps to monetize it. We might end it permanently. I think this is what some flash developers are hearing. In reality though, Flash will obviously not be discontinued. Look at Shockwave, it has been in zombie mode for years. Then again, there is the "lure" of javascript. We all know, pretty soon,. a developer will release a great Javascript game that will make a ton of money and become super popular and than it might fuel momentum in Javascript. Okay I'll give you that. On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Mike Chambers <mcham...@adobe.com> wrote: > Yep. Agreed. > > We had announced last year that we planned to monetize alchemy, and then > announced earlier this year that as part of that we would be removing the > domainMemory API. > > Based on community feedback we changed those plans so that domainMemory is > still available (and officially supported), and that it would only be a > premium feature when used in conjunction with Stage3D. > > mike chambers > > m...@adobe.com > > On Apr 17, 2012, at 1:02 PM, Tink wrote: > > > > > On 17 Apr 2012, at 20:37, Mike Chambers wrote: > > > > > > IMO if you want to gain back trust a credibility with developers you > still need to be clearer and more open about your plans. It should have > been made plain and clear that some of these new features would come at a > cost. > > > > Tink > >
