On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 02:36:11PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote: > Hi! > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:54:15AM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote: > >On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 06:59:44PM -0700, Jason LaRiviere wrote: > > >> Flash has a place on the web, just like any other rich media format. It > >> should be used responsibly, as semantically as possible, and degrade > >> nicely for those who care not to use it. I make every effort to use it > >> within these guidelines, and present them as gospel to my clients. Many > >> (most?) modern web developers do too, except for the ones at a Flex > >> conference who still think drawing entire websites in Flash is a good > >> idea. Shame on them, but they are a dying breed. > > >Flash has one huge technical benefit. There are a number of sites that > >generate large amounts of dynamic images. Doing this in a fast and > >efficient manner requires an enormous amount of computing resources. > >Using flash pushes that work out to the client where it can be rendered > >on their own system. > > What about four letters: Java? One advantage: No blob required. And at > least a *bit* more portable. And will eventually be quite open source.
I don't have any customers that use Java for client-side image rendering, so I can't speak as to how it would compare. I suspect that Java wouldn't be as efficient as flash for passing instructions to the client, but that's just a hunch. -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net/
