> Flash for the sake of flash is not good, but sometimes you have to > show people that you and your product are keeping up with the times, not > already obsolete before you even download it and start using it.
Can you explain why you think "flash", as you put it, means that something is keeping up with the times / not obsolete? >From my personal observation things with "flash" tend to become obsolete as >soon as the next "flash fad" comes along -- such as redesigning and rebuilding >simply because the "latest fad" is big white boxes that are 90% whitespace >containing indecipherable mono-colour octa-size icons (meaning 128x128 pixels >instead of 16x16 pixels) with zero-contrast text and highlighting, if there is >any text at all -- such as the latest crap coming from Microsoft and the fruit >company. The "time to obsolescence" of "flash fads" is about 6 months. The time to obsolescence of highly functional, transparent, understandable and robustly engineered products is measured in decades or centuries. That is why e-mail (SMTP), NetNews (NNTP), IRC, ModBUS, GPIB, SCSI &c have not changed much in a quarter century and are not likely to change much in the next quarter century. Their simplicity and strictly engineered separation of CODE and DATA is very hard to bypass, compared to the pitiful morass that comprises the WWW (which is completely unsafe for any use without having employed ad-blockers, anti-trackers, javascript blockers, activex blockers, and on and on). Once you wipe all the disgusting filth from the WWW there is very little left. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
