Pundits Preaching the Passing of HTML have been Persistently Proven Pungent.
No one size fits all solution for anything, IMO. Vanilla HTML does somethings very well, and adding fluff, in the form of AJAX/flash wizardry on serves to get in my way. That said, there are things where a liberal sprinkling of ajax makes it much easier to use. And there are also cases where a full blown RIA make sense. Barry Beattie wrote: > this thread didn't really go where I hoped... Angus Johnson and Andrew > Muller got closest (thanx guys) > > (and it looks like it's degraded into the typical off-topic slanging > match that [many people] are well and truly over) > > so before it collapses into a steaming pile of poo... Getting back to > Flex and CF (especially since Flex is for front-end UI's and CF is a > server technology) > > - HTML is as good as dead! well, not really but if you're working on > a webapp using far too much DHTML (if it's got tabs and child windows) > it'll be as good as redundant and old fashioned in 12 months time. If > the company you're working for has no strategy for Flex and will > persevere with the same tired old HTML, beat the rush and get out now > (IMHO) > > - AJAX is dead (as above). Except in particular situations why bother > when Flex will do it all? (http://developerdispatch.com/?p=253 "Why > ActionScript 3.0 Changes Everything") > > - Accessibility enhancements (especially with screenreaders like JAWS) > has just taken a back-seat. MACR were making good in-roads in this > area but still had a way to go. If it's left to the community to > drive, it won't get any further. it's just not sexy enough or bring in > the revenue to justify continued development. It's like rural > pay-phones: needs subsidy from other profitable areas. (Lets face it, > AJAX is NOT accessible anyway) > > - The best IDE we can ever hope for will be no better than > FlexBuilder. I was heaps more productive with VB6 than I will ever be > with an Eclipse-based IDE. I'd rather have one tool that did it all > 100% well than have to juggle a bunch of plug-ins, each working 80% > well and each having their own quirks (mark this down to personal > preference, I suppose). > > two more points: > > I've mentioned this at CFUG's but it's worth repeating: > - it's now time for CF'ers to step up to the mark on application > design (and this means upskilling from their HTML-based > request/response mindset). Who understands more about application > development, networking, security, robustness and load, et al: a CF > programmer or a Flash designer? > > finally: > - one aspect of the community involvement that worries me is the > dividing line on who does what - buck passing. An example - CFEclipse: > you'd think that the CF dictionary definitions for it would come from > Adobe, but no, it's expected that that the community will provide. > Why? And CF is a cash cow for Adobe? > > eh, my 2c only. your mileage may vary. > barry.b > > PS: > Mike Chambers a cfaussie member? that's news to me. > I'm not knocking this, just surprised he's at all interested in a > bunch of CF'ers on the other side of the world... > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
