On 17.07-12:13, Jason Dixon wrote:
> You don't have to be a dick. [ ... ]
eh ... ok. i wasn't trying to be; i was trying to be funny but
apparently my linguistic skills are on a par with your own.
apologies.
> [ ... ] I don't know anything about Java
> client-side rendering capabilities, and I expressed as such. I'm not
> sure why the phrases "image rendering" or "passing instructions" throw
> you off. I'm not a flash or java developer, nor do I pretend to be.
> But I know that flash is very effective at pushing image rendinering
> resource requirements out to the client, rather than relying on enormous
> amounts of server-side CPU power.
... but i was also making the point that if you "don't know anything
about Java client-side rendering" and are "not a flash or java developer"
perhaps you should refrain from spouting technical jargonese on the
subject. i know what you're getting but i don't think it's representative
of java or flash.
the primary reason for flash performing better is that it has better
development tools (and a more mature/focused API) for these things.
everything you'd need is also available in java. as i said, java is
a language, flash is a solution. one could build the same solutions
in java, should they choose to engage that, and make them just as
performant (qualified, of course, by the platform requirements); it
would just take a lot more work.
[ ... ]
> If you dismiss my comments as fancy, you simply have no experience in
> this arena. No reason to be hostile about it.
apologies again, it was meant as a lighthearted jibe.
p.s: i have some experience in both platforms but would not claim to
be an expert in either
p.p.s: i expect the server side demands you are experiencing are from
a jvm on the server not the actual application demands that you are
correlating them to (although i do understand the overlap)
--
t
t
w
