On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 14:46 -0700, Christian Seberino wrote: > Now that I've heard there are open source implementation(s) of Flash I'm > wondering if it will become (or is) the de facto best way to do dynamic > web content. > > Java (JVM) could have won but Windows didn't include it by default. There > may even be other technical issues with "write once run anywhere" success.
I like JSP, Java, and Tomcat. I can write once, run anywhere. It runs fast (much faster than ASP code). Supports XML. Does not always require me to install a plugin into my browser on all my platforms. Is standard across browsers. Add client-side Java stuff and yes, the user may have to install a Java client. Users can get help with this if the server is running a Java Application Server or otherwise properly configured. Then, the web site can provide everything the end-user needs to run the web app without having to jump from web site to web site to D/L all the bits and parts. > > Javascript/AJAX could have won too but Windows seems to try to make sure > Javascript/Jscript is not the same across browsers. As I understand it, a > big part of the work in implementing AJAX is the large amount of hacks to > hide the browser incompatibilities in Javascript/JScript. Thus limited Javascript with JSP. JScript != Javascript, which ca cause problems (thanks again M$). > > That leaves Flash. I HAVE NO IDEA why Microsoft includes Flash in IE > without trying any funny business to break compatibility. Seems every time I turn around I have to install/upgrade flash for one browser or another if I want to see Flash content. Annoying. > > Hence, it looks to me like Microsoft decided that Flash will be the de > facto standard and they succeeded. > > Correct me if I'm wrong since I'm not a web guru. > I have yet to see the benefits of Flash. I still don't know what the big deal is regarding AJAX (but admittedly don't know enough about it to judge). PGA -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
