> However, to put things bluntly, HTML sucks. Html might suck.. but it has driven internet..to where it is today.
CFMX was re-written in Java as J2EE application, giving developers the leverage to implement scalable applications... and be productive(ROI). MM did a really good job...but released too soon. As for Flash and RIA.. its just another hype... If anything is going to replace.. html...that will probably be an open source technique..approved my W3C etc.. and when all browser vendors agree to implement the alternative(RIA) to "html"... that might be reality... until then.. "HTML" will rock.. JUST FACT! :) Joe Eugene > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 7:29 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: The New Macromedia Website > > > > Jaye I think we're starting to argue semantics and not > > the facts. I agree with the trip methodology, but when > > I got in the car, macromedia told me the destination > > was rapid development and lower costs. The new altered > > path is u-turn, because now we are heading towards longer > > development and higher costs. > > If you don't mind me torturing your analogy a bit, Macromedia just sells > cars. You're the driver. > > > As a capitalist you are assuming that if you invest more, > > you will get a higher return. Even though there isn't > > much evidence to prove this. If amazon.com decided to go > > into an RIA, they would be negating the millions the spent > > to build their existing site, not too mention spending > > three times their original investment. Just because it's > > in flash, how is it going to sell more books? The fact > > that RIA means higher quality is still unproven. MM can > > give you the Starbucks lecture about how people will pay > > for 'experience', which I think holds true in brick and > > mortar. I think it's a pipe dream in the world of the web. > > If Barnes and Noble has a better price on Harry Potter, > > people will buy it there, regardless of the online buying > > 'experience'. > > I agree with you about the uselessness of this whole "experience" > metaphor. > I also agree that it would probably be a bad more for Amazon to > switch to a > Flash interface right now - they probably wouldn't sell books. I > think that > ecommerce sites will probably be the last to switch over to a > "rich client" > interface, because ecommerce sites depend on simplicity so much - things > just have to work exactly right all the time, or they lose a sale. > > However, to put things bluntly, HTML sucks. It sucks really bad. It's the > worst thing to happen to application interfaces in the short history of > computing, next to the QWERTY keyboard. The success of HTML interfaces has > been in spite of this awful step backwards in interface design, > not because > of it. Web applications are used everywhere nowadays, in place of the > typical client-server applications of ten years ago, not because their > interfaces are better - far from it - but because they're cheaper > and easier > to develop and deploy. > > Macromedia, like Sun and Microsoft before it, is aiming for a > natural goal - > the marriage of the deployment advantages of Web applications with the > usability and functionality advantages of "native" desktop and > client-server > applications. Sun's attempt, of course, was client-side Java. I remember > well attending tradeshows (in the late '90s, I think) in which everyone > proclaimed that HTML was dead, and that next year everyone would be using > client-side Java. Well, you know how that worked out. Microsoft's > foray into > this was ActiveX, which didn't work out very well either. They > both had some > common problems - deployment and platform limitations, and complexity, for > example. But just because they both failed doesn't mean that their common > goal isn't a worthy one, at least for some application interfaces. > > Macromedia's answer to the problem of the suckiness of HTML is > Flash, and it > has been for some time. Flash has some natural advantages over Java and > ActiveX which needn't be elaborated here. > > > For the last few years I've been telling upper management > > that I can cut costs, raise quality, and employ less > > developers. Cold Fusion is the solution for us. Am I > > supposed to go to them and say, I need 3 times the > > budget per project and quadruple my department size > > (4x my yearly operating costs) I have no evidence that > > this will bring us any return on our investment or will > > our application be higher quality. They will in fact be > > slower to load though, and probably won't be accessible > > to everyone. Oh yeah, please disregard everything I've > > told you in the past few years, about saving money and > > faster development. I've changed my mind. (Seriously, > > if I didn't write this, I'd think it was from a Dilbert > > comic) > > If you don't need the functionality of rich client interfaces > now, or don't > think they're worth the cost now, why would you bother changing your > development approach? There's nothing wrong with doing what > you're doing. As > time passes, it will continue to become easier and cheaper to build rich > client interfaces, and at some point, it'll be easy enough and > cheap enough > to be worth your time. Right now, I'll be the first to agree that rich > client interfaces aren't appropriate for every project - they're just > another option to consider. > > > A year is not enough time to completely contrast a > > philosophy. Look, I'm just trying to shed light on this > > shock you are attributing to 'new technology'. I'm not > > making these facts up; I'm trying to logically explain > > them. In August of last year anyone talking about > > emerging MS technology on this list would get flamed > > and lambasted. I can't tell you how many times I got > > the M$ evil empire lecture. But last month I noticed > > a large part of this community actively learning .NET. > > Which is very concerning considering CFMX hasn't even > > been out a year. > > > > My underlying issue is that Macromedia is very fickle. I > > can't tell you where they are going to be in a year. Which > > mean I don't know where I, a MM developer will be in a year > > either. > > I don't think you can rationally conclude that Macromedia is any > more fickle > than any other technology company. They've been moving in this > direction of > rich client applications for more than a year. I sat in on a panel > discussion in Devcon 2001, I think it was, in which people were discussing > these sorts of applications. At Fig Leaf, we've been building > these sorts of > applications occasionally since Flash 4 came out, and I know we > weren't the > only ones. > > As for people's reactions to MS products on this list, what has that to do > with Macromedia? As for people learning .NET, well, more power to > them! The > economy is tight, and people should generally be learning about other > technologies anyway. I'm learning .NET, just like I learned ASP 1-3 (well, > hopefully a little better, actually), and there are actually a > lot of things > I like about it. That doesn't mean that I don't like CFMX better, though. > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > http://www.figleaf.com/ > voice: (202) 797-5496 > fax: (202) 797-5444 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
