Just my $.02 from my own experience... If you are in the same situation I usually am in your direction will most likely be decided for you by your boss/client, be it technology, be it tools, be it whatever else. This will probably mean that you will also have deadlines to fulfill. In that case I would recommend you go with what you know or can know that will be useful and that will make you and your project succeed. That might be using Rails generated JS / other tools/technologies that you can use now.
Don't try to use stuff you still don't know if you are under time constraints or you will never get there. On Jun 3, 4:30 am, TINODEV <tinodev...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok.. > > Took me a while to answer and try to figure out what direction was > suggested by each one of you.. > > Replying here in general, but referring to ideas, links and > suggestions contributed by you all, so - thanks, everyone! :) > > You all supplied me with valuable information.. > Yet due to multiple opinions / suggestions / different implementation > advices, > I'm again not sure where to be heading regarding the app's UI.. > > As I'm developing on Windows, remarks concerning Objective-C, Cocoa, > putting Cappuccino at the same sentence.. make me think this is not > the things for me right now even if I wanted to (wish it was).. Not > sure about SproutCore.. I understand the pros and cons of using Flex/ > Flash, though was nice to hear there are developers out there who do > use it (on windows), in case I do follow this direction... > After better understanding the suggestions, my tendency (or wish at > least) is to follow tools / technologies which will make my app more > likely to be accessible on most platform / following Standards- > compliant HTML.. > > That being said, I do need to separate between my wishes to further > study and follow your suggestions and the app's deadlines.. > for the long run, I understand I should be looking into writing > JavaScript independent code myself, or try Rails 3's JavaScript > Helpers when it's stability is more probable > > BUT - right now I have no JavaScript knowledge or experience.. could > learn things, but will take time - time I'm not sure I have right > now.. therefore, unless this knowledge to start things from scratch is > crucial in order to use JavaScript in my app I AM (sigh) looking for > tools / examples / advices to shorten my way to the required app's > UI.. > > So - basically asking here for more detailed information and/or help > if you can supply me with some... > > Thanks, a lot :) > > tino. > > On Jun 3, 1:03 am, Marnen Laibow-Koser <li...@ruby-forum.com> wrote: > > > paul h wrote: > > > Hi tino, > > > > I use Flex (don't like the Flash IDE - especially that stinking > > > Timeline ) with Rails all the time - no problems. Being on Windows, I > > > use InstantRails, and Aptana Studio as an editor, although I do as > > > much as I can now via the command line. I looked into Aptana due to it > > > being built on Eclipse the same as Flex, no other reason. I have not > > > had any problems so until I do, being Pragmatic :) I'll stay as I am > > > for now. > > > I recommend against Aptana. It was promising, but never really > > fulfilled that promise. Anyway, Rails is better without an IDE. Just > > use a good text editor (I like KomodoEdit). > > > [...] > > > > As far as not using Flash because of iPhones etc, I guess it depends > > > on your target market and the application itself. Are your users going > > > to want to access your services from a mobile handest? I have a mobile > > > running Android (not the latest version) and it struggles to display e- > > > mails from this group, and not all web pages are viewable > > > (particularly from this group) - regardless of Flash content or not - > > > so I wouldn't make a decision on the technology used on your full > > > blown web site app based on the mobile market. Mobile Apps, not web > > > sites, are the way forward in my, very humble, view. > > > I believe you are 98% wrong here. With the profusion of mobile > > operating systems and browsers, it is now more important than ever to > > develop in standards-compliant HTML that will work effortlessly on all > > client devices. > > > Taking my own use case (which may or may not be typical), I do a heck of > > a lot of Web browsing on my iPhone. The browser is excellent and > > capable of dealing with just about any standards-compliant HTML and JS. > > If your site requires me to download a special-purpose app, whereas your > > competitor's works flawlessly in the Web browser, which one do you think > > I'll use (hint:it won't be yours)? > > > > Instead of trying to develop one web site/application front end for > > > all devices, why not make your main site - the one which will do all > > > the attracting of customers - exactly as is required for that > > > particular purpose. If you then need to provide access to services for > > > the mobile market, create the relevant App for the relevant handset > > > OS. > > > Hell no. There are at least 4 advanced phone operating systems one has > > to develop for if one goes this route. Standards-compliant HTML works > > everywhere. > > > > With Rails, you can create the one Application on the server, then > > > specific front end apps for each market you are targeting - each of > > > which could connect with Rails. > > > You certainly can. But in most cases, it's probably extra work to no > > real advantage. > > > Best, > > -- > > Marnen Laibow-Koserhttp://www.marnen.org > > mar...@marnen.org > > -- > > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-t...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
