Exactly what I feel. You will need 3 components launched to develop 1. App inventor 2. block editor 3. Emulator.
the webstart tool is a hack job, and I could argue, "why don't you do the whole thing in webstart." Google might phase out the webstart later. Using the puzzle style to glue events and procedures together do not make the problem easier. The worst part is, similar operations have multiple puzzle pieces, making it so difficult Bottom line is, if you can get this thing to work, you could have written the code already as the puzzle pieces almost spell out the program code. On Aug 17, 12:21 pm, Mike Wolfson <mwolf...@gmail.com> wrote: > Alan, thanks for the interesting post. > > I have had a chance to play with App Inventor, and I wasn't > impressed. Like a lot of Google's early products, it felt very > incomplete (the fact that my phone had to be plugged into the > computer, to even use the app for instance). Also, insuring the > various pieces are installed and running properly (webstart, the App > Inventor plug-in component, and the Phone drivers) could be a bit > beyond the normal "non-programmer" user. > > Bottom line, it certainly isn't ready for prime-time - it needs a lot > more polish before it is usable by non-technical users. > > I do find the product interesting, in that it is likely a precursor to > the Visual development environment that Android developers have been > asking for. This tool could be especially useful for GUI layout > creation (assuming you are able to export what you create inside the > tool, to be used elsewhere - which is not possible now). > > Last thought, App Inventor is limited in functionality. While it is > fairly easy to create a simple Twitter client, it is not easy to > create anything that is more custom, or uses advanced functionality. > In order to create a viable Android App, it is necessary to be able to > dig deeper into the APIs then Inventor allows. > > I do think it is an interesting tool, clearly designed to increase the > amount of apps in the Android Market (AM). If it is released to the > public, I do expect we will see a lot of apps in the AM, but not > quality ones. As with everything, the cream (meaning the apps written > by developers, making use of advanced APIs) will rise to the top, and > the rest will fall to obscurity (at least that is the theory, the > current state of the AM may change this - but the problems with the > market is a discussion for another post). > > Bottom line, while App Inventor is an interesting product, I don't > think any of us developers are in any danger of our skills becoming > obsolete anytime soon. > > On Aug 16, 6:43 am, Alan Gutierrez <a...@blogometer.com> wrote: > > > > > Eddie wrote: > > > I have just tried out google app inventor this weekend and would like > > > to discuss this tool. > > > > 1. This is not a true web app as it has a java webstart application to > > > manage events handling. Only layouts and resource managements are > > > done within the browser web app. > > > 2. You cannot download java source codes, so you will not be able to > > > use app inventor as a wizard to start off a project and export it to > > > eclipse. > > > Thoughts on the non-programmer programming tool: It is part of a cycle. > > I recall as web programming proper was getting started, back in the > > 90's, there was a rash of Borland HTML Builders and Microsoft Visual > > HTML Script Enterprise Editions. I was asked to create the web UI for a > > Lotus Notes application using Domino. Domino introduced me to the > > concept of software designed according to the specification "we just > > need to be able to say we do web stuff." You could build the demo and > > nothing else. > > > Whenever a programming concept gets hot, there is always ink to be > > spilled on the first person to say that, no only does this new flavor of > > software development make programmers rich, it can make everyone rich, > > because it is so advanced, we don't need programmers anymore. > > > Here's a quote from a CTO of a tool startup in the comments of a > > discussion about AJAX from a few years back: > > >http://okcancel.com/archives/article/2005/09/why-ajax-matters-now.html > > > "To avoid the confusion we refer to our implementation of high level > > languages as Morfik C#, Morfik Java, Morfik Basic and Morfik Pascal > > (with more to come). All of these are fully object oriented and support > > all object-oriented constructs. When one writes in Morfik C#, one is > > thinking and expressing the logic of application in C#." > > > This was in response to the question, where is the AJAX IDE? Some firm > > came forward with the promise of an IDE that lets you write AJAX in C#, > > Java, Basic, Pascal, with more to come! Not quite the non-programmer > > programmer solution, but the same notion that everyone is so out of > > their head with excitement, that their is an opportunity for anyone say > > anything, so long as they address the problem of, how do I get a peace > > of this pie? Use non-programmers, on in this case, use the programmers > > you can find, C#, Java, Basic or Pascal programmers. > > > "Programmers are a thing of the past" is usually at the end of the hype > > cycle, when the gold rush is over, and people have to sober up. > > > -- > > Alan Gutierrez - a...@blogometer.com -http://twitter.com/bigeasy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
