What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
Scary Quiz - Do you have what it takes to attract women? view!
doubleyourdating.com - Think you know a thing or two about meeting women? Take this quiz and find out...
38 Comments
- ojk007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Flex FTW!!
(... i wonder how many people actually know what flex is ...) - MySchizoBuddy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Flash already has a huge existing market. ur acting like its going to go puff when WPF/E is released. C# is for desktop applications. Developers are going to write code that was meant for desktops not online, resulting in crappy online products coming from C# developers.
Just imagine all those C# developers with desktop mentality now making web apps. Disaster. - industrealis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I was under the impression that Apollo was a sort of wrapper around web technologies like AJAX, Flash, and Flex. It's supposed to allow the typical web application to run on the desktop as a desktop application would. This would allow you to use gmail like thunderbird as long as Google (or whoever provides the app), giving it the ability to run offline and perhaps have access to some of the desktop that web apps have traditionally been barred from (disk I/O, network interfaces, etc). Vaporware marketing *****? If that's marketing, then maybe I should be studying that instead of computer science.
- chasgad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Regarding the IDE and language - The IDE for Flex applications - including those that will be deployed as Apollo applications - is Adobe FlexBuilder - *not* the Flash authoring tool. FlexBuilder is an Eclipse plugin and certainly a solid alternative to Visual Studio.
http://www.adobe.com/products/flex/flexbuilder/
ActionScript 3 is object-oriented and elegant.
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/actionscript/articles/actionscript3_overview.html
Any problems Adobe will have with Apollo or Flex won't be as a result of the IDE or language. This company is doing some really innovative things, and if anyone needs to watch their backs, it's Microsoft. - webtech, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5A special podcast with Adobe senior vice president and chief software architect Kevin Lynch about the upcoming release of the Apollo platform:
http://www.talkcrunch.com/2006/12/16/here-comes-adobe-apollo/ - MySchizoBuddy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Adobe even has demos of Apollo applications. How is it vaporware then. moron
you can see screenshot of some of the demo apps
http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com/?p=75 - drzeus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The Flex 2 SDK is a free download. There's a good chance the Apollo SDK will be free too.
- gedw99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3But i agree with Hokkos.
If MS drop the ball in supporting OS's other than MS, then its all over for WPF/E in this respect. No one will use it, except in intranet. - tybris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Java Web Start.
- MySchizoBuddy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Sorry WPF/E works on macs
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=1665A00C-F7BB-459A-9DA2-F1DB6297277F&displaylang=en - CaughtThinking, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5WPF is going to kill flash like .NET killed Java so many years ago. oh wait, it didn't , and didn't even come close. i suspect apollo will find a niche market, but wont make it down to the one man coder- especially if they charge up the wazoo for the tools (which adobe is so fond of doing)
- mattza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Article by Ryan Stewart on eBay's San Dimas project (the Apollo application mentioned in the Techcrunch post):
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Stewart/?p=197 - lilzaphod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've seen it running. Hell, I have the installers in my back pack right now, but I'm too busy to install it.
It's in a closed Beta state right now for people like Ebay, etc. Go to a user group meeting where there Adobe representitves are there, and there's a good chance you'll get to see it as well.
Vaporware my ass. - MySchizoBuddy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@gedw99
WPF/E isn't cross platform yet. Flash is. It run in all browsers and most OSes including Linux. Its highly doubtful that WPF/E will support Linux or even macs for that matter - junk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Competition is always good.
- gauthierm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How is this different from XUL which already does "allow developers to take rich internet applications, whether they be built on Flash, HTML, JavaScript and/or Ajax, and turn them into desktop applications?"
- Soulhuntre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1WPF/e is a seriously kick ass technology. it looks great, it can interoperate with other technologies and the developemnt is pretty easy AND the tools to develop with are all free.
You can see a Flash / WPF/e integrated app below.
http://www.thewpfblog.com/examples/wpfe/microbe/Default.html - mattza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I was under the impression that Apollo was a sort of wrapper around web technologies like AJAX, Flash, and Flex. It's supposed to allow the typical web application to run on the desktop as a desktop application would."
Apollo is not some magic fairy dust -- you can't sprinkle it over any old web app to make it run offline. If Google wants to build a GMail desktop app, they can do so using Apollo, but it will take lots of development work on their part. Now, Apollo is probably a good development platform for such an application, because they could re-use much of the HTML/AJAX from the GMail presentation tier, but if they want to, say, add desktop caching for GMail, but they would have to code that additional functionality. Now if only Google exposed rich APIs for GMail, it wouldn't have to be them who would write this app -- an enterprising independent developer could do it instead. - MySchizoBuddy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@gedw99
Where does it say that it has been released. I know u want to ditch Adobe, but please don't be so transparent about it. - chadu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm just guessing here, but I would think that MS is the one with the uphill battle here. I'm betting there are more Flash developers out there than C#, the Flash player is way more distributed than WPF/E player and Flash/Flex/Apollo works with any middleware the developer wants to use, it doesn't require IIS/MSSQL/ASP .Net, etc...
MS knows what they are doing and it's good to have competition in the area, but at this time, my money is on Adobe. - ohhmaagawd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2.net damage to Java? news to me (and I'm a RoR advocate, not a java fan-boy)...
do a job search on .net vs java. you'll see... - KirillOFF, on 08/22/2008, -0/+0http://tune-zone.com/
Adobe's monopoly is now up for a test that it has NEVER had to submit to, and the FAT lady is about to sing. - suppaibeg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think they already have dropped the ball. Just on the fact that WPF projects will use DirectX for some things, obviously such things won't work on the Mac plugin, so MS is already treating Mac users like 3rd class citizens. I can't think of any Mac user who would be stupid enough to install the plugin. You can be sure it runs like *****, probably has plenty of security vulnerabilities, not to mention Microsoft's tendency to go limp and pull out recently (such as IE, WMP, VPC on the Mac). Will the hacks at MS really stick it out and support a PLUGIN? Making it up to par with the Windows version? LOL
Microsoft is attempting to cut the head off the baby known as RIA's just as its about to really come into being. Lets hope people aren't as stupid when they did this with the web 5+ years ago. - poplop, on 05/23/2008, -0/+0I've seen it running. Hell, I have the installers in my back pack right now, but I'm too busy to install it.
http://ru-t.com/about
антимаулнетизм - Pepko, on 07/25/2008, -0/+0http://forexmax.ru/
ash, HTML, JavaScript and/or Ajax, and turn them into desktop applications?" - superzorn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ummm... sweet!
- gedw99, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Clearly Adobe ***** their pants about the Microsoft Presentation Foundation (and particularly the WPF/E). After looking at the WPF/e run time they have every reason to be its a Flash killer in many ways, and opens to door for any c# developer to write cross platform with almost no extra effort. I would not want to be Adobe right now ; interesting days ahead for MS and Adobe
- chadu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1especially since you showed up.
- rglover, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I wonder if Google will take advantage of this to distribute their docs/spreadsheet combo?
- hokkos, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21/ There are more project in Java then .NET
20% project written in Java, and 5% in C#, so .Net killed nothing
2/ WPF/E don't work on linux, and is buggy on mac
Internet love total interop so i don't think it will be adopted
3/Flash is very common, adobe is the leader, it won't be easy for microsoft
And i hope they will failed, cause if they become first, they will forget mac platform after several years. - gedw99, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Yes Flash does have a huge market. It also has a monopoly in the cross platform Internet application arena in many ways (there others but they are minor in market share).
But, many of the assertions you are mentioning are really ignorant.
I actually looked at porting an app to WPF about 8 months ago. The run time was reasonably stable even then. But, i opted to wait and see if the promised WPF/E would be delivered as MS promised. This was the clincher for me in NOT pursuing the WPF technology.
This is what i see about FLASH compared to WPF:
1. The IDE and language are terrible. i have used flash for 8 years. The MS VS2005 is well regarded as the best IDE on the market today (in terms of integration into the run time and technologies). The integration story with WPF is even more impressive, with a designer only having to use a killer design tool and not even touch VS2005 if they don't want to.
2. The Flash run time and the WPF run time run on the same platforms ( true the Linus version is not out yet).
3. The developer community for Flash is MUCH smaller than that for .NET and hence WPF. I could go on but wont.
From a political and timing perspective i would say:
Any market where you have (or had i should say) a monopoly always leads to sloppy advancement by the company that has that monopoly. Adobe are very guilty here - they have not really innovated (look at the IDE for example).
If MS could cause so much damage to Java's market share (and don't forget .NET only runs on MS; sure mono is there too), imagine the carnage that MS can do to Flash (where WPF will run on MACS and Linux in the future).
The only negative is trust. Will CEO's, Architects and developers trust the platform to not be used to sell Windows licenses. Well, porting WPF to Windows XP and Macs pretty much answers this question. MS have learned the lesson that the network is valuable to own and not just the desktop.
Also i have to disagree that .NET developers will not have the design sense to build a lightweight app, because they are only used to building FAT clients. ASP.NET and of course the ATLAS run time environment shows this.
The design is well catered for in the product offering fro developing WPF presentation layers:
http://www.microsoft.com/products/expression/en/expression-blend/default.mspx
http://expressionblend.com
Also, the 3 tier architecture model is well known and used, and WPF is just the presentation layer. From WPF i can call a Web Service to get my data, and integrate my business logic in the client as needed. Flash does not have this richness of separation of tiers. The Remoting and Web Service developer story for Flash is terrible compared to WPF.
i hate MS as much as the next guy (mainly because they have used their desktop ownership to bury innovation), but WPF/E is going to change the landscape of Internet apps i think. They said about 1 year ago they were going to bring out a MAC version of WPF, and they have. They have said about a month ago they are bringing out a Linux versions, so i expect they will.
Add to this the fact that MS has full support for PDF documents in there Office 2007 environment and i would not want to be Adobe. Adobe's monopoly is now up for a test that it has NEVER had to submit to, and the FAT lady is about to sing. - Tandaemonium, on 10/12/2007, -13/+11Everything is different, but the same. Things are more moderner than before...bigger, and yet smaller. It's computers...
San Dimas high school football rules! - gedw99, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3i gave Flex a go. It was a nice idea using a XML notation to wrap the flash movie files.
But, it was too much of a thin wrapper i found and did not pursure it.
And now its Apollo.
It really looks like Adobe are sinking and grabbing anything with some bouyancy to keep them afloat in the Rich Internet Application (RIA) market.
I am not saying Flash will go away, but that it will be less relevant, because of WPF/e - gedw99, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2The screen shots have a stereotypical look of a Flex application to me.
How can you release a new software framework and release absolutely nothing technical about it, except to say its based in the WebKit.
Great use open source, but Adobe at least fes up about what it is you are promising to build. Adobe have a history of having personalty changes in relation to their architecture too often and its leaves developers to deal with their split personality. - sishgupta, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Billy Madison rocks.
- mtappenden, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Smells of poo in here
- hansblix, on 10/12/2007, -17/+2yeah, the ironic thing about this is we didnt even land on the moon.
- bakunin, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3Apollo: vaporware, marketing, *****.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is