On 21.11.2012, at 10:35, sébastien Paturel wrote: > its more JS that need some improvements than HTML5. The dream solution i'd > love to see happen would be to see JS evolve to something very close to what > AS3 is. (AS3 is ECMAScript and is supposed to be the future of JS)
All the effort on JS currently is about making it faster, not so much about improving the language. Which is why Google created Dart. Also, even if an effort to modernize JS started now, it would take 5-10 years for it to go through development, standardization and browser implementation in such a way that it was available in a decent percentage of used browsers. This is just an enormously slow process. > > HTML5 is not mature enough to compete with flash player right now, but we > have to think about future, and it will improve quite quick with all the hype > around it. Hmm, quick isn't the first word that comes to my mind... > And even if you prefer flash player, there is our dreams, and there is > reallity. And reallity is that Adobe is pushing HTML5 for web and giving up > flash player for that. And we have to be prepared to a time where there will > not be flash player only HTML5 everywhere. (in several years maybe, but will > happen unless something drastically change) Adobe has absolutely not given up Flash player for web allthough their focus has narrows. They may give up on FP eventually but as far as I know they are currently pouring resources into a AS4, a new VM and Flash player updats. I do agree that the possible eventuality of no Flash player needs to be considered, I'm just advocating that the current excellent platform we have isn't scrapped just because this and that could happen at some point in the future. > > You talk about JavaFX and the discussion among them for the need of a plugin > for what they want. But to achieve that they need Oracle. And they will > conclude the same than Flex community: its only dream and we don't have the > power to make it change. You can create a perfect VM in a plugin, but if you > can't install it on devices because of political issues, then it worse > nothing. No, they don't want a plugin, they want smth like AIR, easy deployment of desktop and mobile apps on top of a single runtime. I think we can all agree that there will never be another plugin like Flash player, that is with both the functionality and enormous reach. > > "This is of course still possible, we just don't know how long it is going to > last :-( But while it works, I hope Apache Flex will continue to be > maintained/improved in it's current shape." > It seems that we all say that as well. Theres no contradiction to > maintain/improve the sdk in its current shape, AND start to prepare its > future (in another shape if we don't have the choice to do differently) > We need to figure out RIGHT NOW a path for the future of the SDK because : > 1- it will take time to realise it and get back the same level of features we > have today. especially if the only available solution is to rewrite it. > 2- we need to give visibility for the future so that IT decision makers can > choose Flex for long term projects. If we don't give this visibility, only > short term projects will be able to use Flex. And it will be seens as "no > future" technology in IT world. Agreed. > > > Le 21/11/2012 10:33, Hordur Thordarson a écrit : >> On 20.11.2012, at 22:14, Kevin Newman wrote: >> >>> Mark Zuckerberg also said very publicly that Facebook "burned" (his word) 2 >>> years of development with HTML5, "We burned two years. That's really >>> painful. Probably we will look back saying that is one of the *biggest >>> mistakes* if not *the biggest strategic mistake* that we made." It was less >>> of a "cave" and more of a fundamental shift in understanding (and a correct >>> one). >> Agreed and that's really what I ment by "caved in", they just realized it >> was never going to be as good as a native app. The problem with HTML5/JS as >> an app mechanism is that it just wasn't designed for that. Some changes >> have been made to it in order to make it easier to write applications (as >> opposed to web sites which is a totally different thing) but it really isn't >> very good for that at all except maybe for small apps. The JavaFX crowd is >> having the exact same discussion the Flex crowd is, except pretty much no >> one in the JavaFX crowd wants to deploy to HTML/JS. They want JavaFX >> runtimes for mobile so that they can have one set of code and the same or >> very similar runtime everywhere (sound familiar ?). And the community is >> actually working towards a solution that gives them that. But Oracle, like >> Adobe, seems to have given into the "HTML5 for everything" rhetoric so they >> are at least currently not backing this. >> >>> This is where Adobe has an opportunity with AIR, that they seem intent on >>> failing to capitalize on (at least in their marketing narratives, and the >>> signals the decision makers are sending out into the market place - the >>> Flash engineers are doing pretty cool stuff with stage3D and whatnot). >> Yep, very frustrating that Adobe gave up on this vision because they had by >> far the strongest dev/deployment story out there with almost the best of >> everything. with Flash player or AIR for the desktop and AIR for mobile and >> almost single source for all the platforms (UI tweaks/diffs for >> phones/tablets obviously). This is of course still possible, we just don't >> know how long it is going to last :-( But while it works, I hope Apache >> Flex will continue to be maintained/improved in it's current shape. >> >>> Anyway, Apache Flex doesn't need to wait for Adobe's higher-ups to figure >>> it out - Flex can go HaXe, and have a multi-platform ubiquity story and an >>> open source story to boot. >> Sure. I have to say though that my clients don't really care if the tools I >> use are open source or not or whether the language I write in is >> ActionScript or Haxe or smth else. They care about functionality, >> usability, cross-platformness and ease of deployment/updating of the >> resulting product, and they also want development to cost as little as >> possible, hence the less problems I have during dev and the less testing I >> have to do in multiple browsers or with multiple runtimes, the better. >> >>> Kevin N. >>> >>> >>> On 11/17/12 5:25 AM, Hordur Thordarson wrote: >>>> Eventually FB caved in and created a fully native app. > >
