On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 02:36:11PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:

quoted text
> Hi!

>

> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:54:15AM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:

> >On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 06:59:44PM -0700, Jason LaRiviere wrote:

>

> >> Flash has a place on the web, just like any other rich media format. It

> >> should be used responsibly, as semantically as possible, and degrade

> >> nicely for those who care not to use it. I make every effort to use it

> >> within these guidelines, and present them as gospel to my clients. Many

> >> (most?) modern web developers do too, except for the ones at a Flex

> >> conference who still think drawing entire websites in Flash is a good

> >> idea. Shame on them, but they are a dying breed.

>

> >Flash has one huge technical benefit.  There are a number of sites that

> >generate large amounts of dynamic images.  Doing this in a fast and

> >efficient manner requires an enormous amount of computing resources.

> >Using flash pushes that work out to the client where it can be rendered

> >on their own system.

>

> What about four letters: Java? One advantage: No blob required. And at

> least a *bit* more portable. And will eventually be quite open source.

I don't have any customers that use Java for client-side image

rendering, so I can't speak as to how it would compare.  I suspect that

Java wouldn't be as efficient as flash for passing instructions to the

client, but that's just a hunch.
--

Jason Dixon

DixonGroup Consulting

http://www.dixongroup.net/