Blog to discuss Midnight Coders products features, ideas and trends in development of Rich Internet Applications

Monday, October 09, 2006

Oi vai, Coach Wei!

John Dowdell has a pretty good post in response to NexaWeb's CTO article on Sys-con. I agree with most everything JD had to say, but thought I'd throw my $0.02 as well.

1. I personally hate when people start throwing around labels like "open-standards", "standards-compliant" card without any supporting substance. First off, there are de jure and de facto standards. If something came out of W3C, Oasis or any other standards body that's your de jure. If millions of people adopted a technology or if ~95% of computers in the world run a non-W3C approved technology, that's a de facto (read Flash plugin here).

2. I checked NexaWeb's examples on their site to see how "standards-compliant" they are, and guess what: with the Java plugin disabled, here's the message I get for all but one of their examples (the one that works is a simple Google Maps-based app):

You don't have JAVA plugin enabled or installed, click here for more info.

With that in mind, does the following conclusion in Coach's article hold any water??:
"Ajax is open, standard-based and web-native. Flash is not open standards-based. Flash content is not native web content and has a lot of interoperability issues with other web technologies"
If you do not mind me asking, does Java Applet programming constitute as Ajax development? Isn't NexaWeb using a plugin which is a lot more closed-source than the Flash plugin? How "web native" is Java applet-based content?

3. I am sick and tired to hear those baseless attacks on Flash and even more meaningless comparisons between Flash and Ajax ( I really should say Flex and Ajax). I'd like to see Adobe taking a firmer position on this subject. I think the policy of trying to satisfy everyone's interests will not produce the desired results. Flex is NOT a technology complementary to Ajax. It kicks Ajax's butt. The technologies are beyond any comparison. If you care to compare, you might as well write an analysis on how space shuttle technologically differs from Model-T.

I have done a number of Ajax-based projects and the experience of tweaking JavaScript to make it work the same in all browsers is nauseating to say the least. Parsing or composing XML using JavaScript is completely retarded. Come on, it is 21st century and you're coding XML by hand?? using JavaScript?? I'd rather get paid doing something more enjoyable (like creating WebORB-based apps, he he he :) )

3 Comments:

Blogger Rob Gonda said...

In fact even Alex Russell (creator of Dojo) said @ The Ajax Experience that if some technology is widely adopted it becomes a standard; he was referring to the xmlHttpRequest object, which in fact, is not a W3C standard.

Now, I somewhat disagree with your comparison of Flex and Ajax ... they just can't be compared. Both have advantages and disadvantages and feat different purposes. You just said you finished a few Ajax projects, why didn't you use Flex? Because there was no need. It's like comparing html and desktop apps.

JavaScript can be a pain, though it's not just JavaScript, but DOM, and DHTML... but that's why there are libraries that create an abstraction layer and allow you to interact with that, which works perfectly on all browsers (jquery, dojo).

8:32 PM

 
Blogger Mark Piller said...

Hey Rob,

I was not trying to compare, I was just being facetious. In fact, I am quite annoyed by the comparisons I see everywhere. These two things are incomparable. Yes, Ajax is good for a certain type of projects and Flex certainly rules for others. So when we're talking about building enterprise applications (which is what Coach is discussing in his article), it seems to be a lame defense tactic to attack Flex.

Btw, the Ajax projects I built used .NET on the backend and we didn't have WebORB for .NET ready yet.

Cheers,
Mark

9:43 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree, Adobe is using the wrong tactics to compete with Ajax. Instead of emphasizing how 'compatible' flex is with Ajax, they should be talking about how much better Flex/Flash is. A case in point is the new ridiculously named 'Flex-Ajax Bridge'. Even from a technical point of view the name is appalling, where is the Ajax? Instead of jumping on the band-wagon, Adobe should be concentrating on building up its own bunch of followers and emphasizing the advantages (of which there are many) of Flash/Flex over Ajax.

8:34 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home