What is Digg?50 Comments
- stynesteen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"flash is not created for developing." - _jinx_
That's just ignorant, ever heard of Flex? You might also want to take a look at http://labs.macromedia.com/ - t35t0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Unfortunately requires flash 8 player which is not yet available for linux.
- ebenthurston, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2nothing gets the digg community fired up like an equation headline.
- smhill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"You are so wrong"
Prove it. What advantage is there to offsetting the interaction to javascript? Most of those examples are not even "AJAX", they are just javascript communicating to a .swf. Flash has had this ability to communicate with both the client and server for years. I develop flash apps professionally, and see absolutely nothing new in this except more meaningless hype for the "AJAX technology". The only 'advantage' I see is that more wannabes can download lame canned scripts they can implement on their myspace.com page with little or no real development knowledge.
The only thing that is happening is adding a redundant level of interaction/processing to the client. Why make flash call a script to get data from a remote server only to pass it back to the .swf? Flash can do this just as well if not better.
Web 3.0? *****. This is Web 1.0 + pointless obfuscation. - JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1AFLAX and other RIA is the future. Look at http://book.orzar.net/ -- it was created using OpenLaszlo, which is completely open source and is NOT BOUND TO ONLY OUTPUT FLASH.
The future is in the Rich (R in RIA) UI. Also notice the new yahoo maps beta.. you will see more. RIA is the future. - Danathar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hmm...Does'nt seem to work in Safari
- lilzaphod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Flash is not created for developing"
I'd disagree with that statement. Flash MX can handle remoting, Flash MX 2004 can handle native webservices and XML. Flex takes XML and Actionscript and turns out .SWF applications. Flex is cross platform, and soon to be cross device. It sounds to me like someone is stuck in a year 2000 "Skip Intro" timewarp...
Macromedia owns cross platform development now, and with Adobe's money will be able to create some very cool market penetrations. It will be nice to be able to create single applications that will work as a desktop app and scale sections down to my cell phone based upon the browser/form factor type.
"I would rather work with PHP and AJAX" = I can't afford to buy development tools. I would love to see you create a dynamic 30 FPS movie where you can use live motion combined with scripting for effects in Ajax and PHP. Flash 8 video is AMAZING. The new codecs are very clean, and the ability to do alpha channel layout changes will make some interesting video applications possible. - GreenAlien, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@amwmedia, if you "don't understand what this is supposed to accomplish" then don't label it as "POINTLESS" ;)
And for the rest of the people that rush to critise (typical slashdot mentality), here's some info from their Q&A. Also, some platforms and browsers need a while to catch up, but that's no argument for not introducing the technology now.
Q. Why not use the existing Flash JavaScript gateway?
A. The Flash JavaScript gateway that was released by Macromedia was only for Flash 7 or earlier. It was a very low performance library as well. It seems to now have been deprecated in favor of Flash 8's new ExternalInterface which is much faster and more capable. The ExternalInterface is what AFLAX is using.
Q. How is this different than just calling functions directly in Flash?
A. The biggest difference is that you don't need to use ActionScript or the Flash IDE -- and you don't need to compile anything. The point of AFLAX is that you can do all of your Flash development in JavaScript, which also gains you the ability to seamlessly mix the two worlds (JavaScript and Flash) with a single language. AFLAX hides all the communications to the Flash object so all of your logic can remain in one place.
Known Issues
* Flash 8 is required. AFLAX is only possible because of advances in the Flash 8 player.
* Will not work in Opera. (Does not support Flash 8 External Interface) - JRMillion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I disagree, as I do quite a bit of Flash Development. Don't get me wrong, I do a lot of PHP also and am about to get into AJAX.
- jesusphreak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah, I definitely think this is overkill.
- hax0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Are they going to use a goose logo too? Haha, very funny acronym.
AFLAX!!!!!!!!
www.aflac.com - slowspin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0AFLAX - Isn't that an insurance company?
- mikef98765, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"An application on this webpage is causing firefox to operate slower. If this continues it may cause your computer to be unresponsive. Do you want to abort this operation?"
and then my firefox crashed. This was using the arrow demo on aflax.org
Great demo, makes me really want to use this technology. - turbopro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0aflac....AFLAC.....AFFLLLAA.....oh wait, AFLAX
- FriedGeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Just what we need, another way to create Text On Fire and Ripple Effects over images. That's it. I'm creating an AJAX wrapper for human feet and I'll call it SHOE, then I'll create an interface layer for it and coll it SOCK. AJAX enabled feet! Just as useful as this.
no digg - maverick999, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Why don't they just use Flash to determine where the cursor is? If you're already using Flash, why bring AJAX into the picture? I'm sure someone will come up with a very cool app to use this, but it seems like overkill to me. I'll digg it anyways...
+digg
---
http://www.caseypicker.com - EvolvedAnt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Do we have to make a new acroynm everytime one technology is used with another?
Perhaps we should make a new one called LAFRSSPHPWSSWGDAJAX for Linux Apache Flash RSS PHP WebService ShockWave Google Desktop Asynchronous JavaScript and XML?
Jeez.. - jmccorm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Next up: AJAX + Push Media!
- henryli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Flash development?
Rather old, but:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4762944544960468107 - JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"POINTLESS! ;-) Flash can already to dynamic calls to remote scripts. It also can already talk to the document via JS. I don't understand what this is suppose to accomplish."
In this regard, I agree. - nacs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"AFLAX needs Flash Player version 8.0 or higher"
... and there's no Flash version 8.0 for Linux yet (only 7.0 is available) so this thing is unusable. - JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The IDE created for flash by Macromedia is CRAP for real life development projects, for creating web apps.. it was designed for animation.. paradigms like Scene and Timeline just do not apply to conventional programming.
However, the installed user base of flash is amazing, and the technologies the plugin supports is amazing. If you use another IDE (and I don't mean Macromedia's flex offering), the possibilities are endless. - tryferos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Gilbert Gottfried is gonna be a happy man...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0jinx, Not to defend flash, but flash is in fact being geared toward development now.
As for why not just use flash...because the ide is horrible. - cbenard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why would you replace the J with FL since Javascript is in there? Why wouldn't it be AJFAX, asynchronous javascript, flash, and xml(xmlhttprequest)?
- retsoced, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There is absolutely nothing on that page that is impressive in any way. So what?! Why not use Microsoft Biztalk to serve up some XML made by importing a Visio doc into InfoPath then port it out to Flash to create a simple animation that tells you what day it is based on a Calendar model from stonehenge?
- generalLEE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Why would you replace the J with FL since Javascript is in there? Why wouldn't it be AJFAX, asynchronous javascript, flash, and xml(xmlhttprequest)"
Or AJFlAX. Isn't AFLAX yet another acronym for some thing that has existed for years, like AJAX is. Flash has had the ability to load asynchronous XML for ages. The only real advantage AJAX has over AFLAX is that it needs no plug in, this is also a disadvantage. - serra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0-cues the Afflak duck-
- iWorks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Can I get certified for "LAFRSSPHPWSSWGDAJAX"
- swilly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0only a matter of time before anthrax starts showing up commonplace on the web
- celeb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ben afleck unavailable for comment:)
- interiot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You guys are still stuck on Web 3.0? I've got 5 internets open, all of them running Web 360!
- lukemayes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Shoot me please! There's not enough room in this world for me and the acronym AJAX.
- smhill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0lol! @ FriedGeek
- Jaybob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Crashed Firefox on me as well.
- thecoolestcow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"'AFLAX needs Flash Player version 8.0 or higher'
... and there's no Flash version 8.0 for Linux yet (only 7.0 is available) so this thing is unusable."
Yeah what's the deal with that? I've been unable to view several websites because of the no-flash8-for-linux ordeal. - lukemayes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Nice comment slowspin.
- Osiriscky3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+04F14>
- afool, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0why using flash, ajax is nearly cool for every webbrowser based application.
http://www.kadang.com - Osiriscky3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0oops
4F14X!!!!!!!!
++DIGG FTW - zefer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Actionscript 2 (Flash's scripting language) is now a fully OO language. You can develop Flash apps without hardly touching the Flash IDE (thank god!). This book looks at developing flash apps from a purely OO perspective. http://tinyurl.com/bu3vu [Amazon, non-affiliate].
By the way, the article page seems to be down. - B-o-K, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Gee... Flash v8 plus these AFLAX-demos eat all my CPU-power...
- _jinx_, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Sorry, but no digg for the simple fact flash is not created for developing. I would rather work with PHP and Ajax!
- whackaxe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0AJAX is already a ***** acronym, no need to bring flash into the picture.
- retsoced, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0No Linux version? That's easy... why would Macromedia bust their butt to develop the plug-in for less than 4% of the user base? More people still use Windows 98 than Linux. If it's that big of a deal, switch to a real OS. (okay, maybe that last bit is over the top) - but you can't hardly blame them for not releasing the plug-in to such a small user base.
- FlyingAvatar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Double no digg:
* Why wouldn't you just use Flash to do it?
* Do we need another dumbass acronym for a collection of technologies? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Wow, you geeks get really hot over such topics.
- JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"DUMB.
No valuable reason to combine the two."
You are so wrong.
http://www.rr.com/flash/index.cfm
http://www.ishares.com/tools/index_tracker.jhtml
Its not simply a 'flash site'. Look closely. This is Web 3.0. - smhill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0DUMB.
No valuable reason to combine the two. - amwmedia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0POINTLESS! ;-) Flash can already to dynamic calls to remote scripts. It also can already talk to the document via JS. I don't understand what this is suppose to accomplish.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is