161–170 of 199 posts
Only on HN you submit an electric car website without further comment - and instead of discussing the car everyone starts arguing over the implementation of the website. ;-)
it probably took the team 10x the time to do that this way instead of flash. it will not work on 100% of the devices. but at least they got some clicks from us that they wouldn't otherway. Continuing with this rationale: if done in flash, it would have take the team 10x the time to that instead of plain html. or 200x the time if done in a simpler html format, like a wikipedia article. it would work on 100% of the dev…
The fancy stuff is like a 4 color brochure. Always skippable if you want information. http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/F/four-color-glossies.html
Never mind.
I don't understand how we've gone from "Flash is crap for entire websites" (edit: which is almost always true) to "Flash is the devil in every situation". It has its place, Javascript will never and shouldn't try and "kill" Flash, they're different.
Flash is a threat to the openness of the web. I can't reliably watch video, play games, or do anything else requiring Flash on my computer because I run Linux. Requiring you run an OS of Adobe's choosing is antithetical to the basic tenets of the web.
it probably took the team 10x the time to do that this way instead of flash. it will not work on 100% of the devices. but at least they got some clicks from us that they wouldn't otherway. Continuing with this rationale: if done in flash, it would have take the team 10x the time to that instead of plain html. or 200x the time if done in a simpler html format, like a wikipedia article. it would work on 100% of the dev…
I was a developer working at the studio that did this. Development took roughly the same amount of time in JS/HTML instead of flash.
I bet folks here would love it too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are confusing. This discussion is about Flash and JavaScript on the web, and you're talking about iOS Apps. One has nothing to do with the other. So, you decided to take the context of the discussion (Flash on the web) and change it (Flash apps), and then limit it to specific hardware (iOS devices, as you cannot run iOS apps on Macs). On top of all of that, you are confusing how Apple is trying to kill Flash and…
You obviously understand what I'm talking about so how confusing could I honestly be? I'm pretty sure that everybody else understood me, even if they claimed otherwise, because we're not idiots here. It's a cheap tactic to pretend that I'm "incoherent" when I am certainly not. The topic is flash. Everybody is saying that it should be replaced. Its replacements include 'X' and 'Y'. The fact that I reference 'Y' rather…
It took reading through multiple comments that were out of context from the original discussion. Your original comments weren't clear.
> I'm pretty sure that everybody else understood me, even if they claimed otherwise, because we're not idiots here.
That's your sign. =)
We generally aren't idiots here. So if people are having a hard time understanding what you mean, assume the problem lies on your end and that you are failing at communicating. Again, context is important, especially in threaded conversations.
> It's a cheap tactic to pretend that I'm "incoherent" when I am certainly not.
But you were. You're believe that you were perfectly clear hinders your acceptance of that.
And please understand I say this with the hope of helping you see how you weren't clear. I mean, I took the time to read your comments, which meant I had to highlight them, even though they were voted down. I could easily have ignored them.
> The topic is flash.
Flash on the web and JavaScript, CSS and others replacing Flash. That's the topic. It's not just flash.
> Everybody is saying that it should be replaced.
Yes, everyone is saying Flash on the web should be replaced.
> Its replacements include 'X' and 'Y'. The fact that I reference 'Y' rather than 'X' is a completely natural context switch.
It's "replacement" on iOS devices is not part of the topic, for several reasons.
The technology being linked to is not limited to iOS devices. In fact, it has nothing to do with Apple. Apple, in truth, has little to do with the desire to remove Flash from the web. However, they did put a spotlight on it.
So, if the technology being linked to and discussed (JS, CSS, HTML, etc) has nothing to do with Apple, but rather open standards, then it's fair to assume when you talk about proprietary devices, you're referring to iOS devices and the apps there. This is confusing. Flash has never been on iOS, meaning it's not being replaced. Also, Flash isn't being replaced on the desktop either. Flash is the one trying to be the platform to develop desktop applications on.
But that's mostly irrelevant, because you said this:
"I really don't want to be forced into paying the 50-100 percent Apple premium for hardware just because they managed to "kill" a technology everyone decided to hate for no reason."
You won't be forced to pay Apple premium for hardware. In fact, costs will only go down, because what is replacing Flash is open standards. If Flash dies today, nothing changes in terms of your choice of computer to use.
In fact, by keeping Flash alive, you are forcing others to pay a premium. By replacing Flash with open standards, you essentially level the playing field.
Anyways, this has gone on for quite a bit.