On 17.07-12:13, Jason Dixon wrote:

quoted text
> You don't have to be a dick.  [ ... ]

eh ... ok.   i wasn't trying to be; i was trying to be funny but

apparently my linguistic skills are on a par with your own.

apologies.
>                      [ ... ]  I don't know anything about Java

quoted text
> client-side rendering capabilities, and I expressed as such.  I'm not

> sure why the phrases "image rendering" or "passing instructions" throw

> you off.  I'm not a flash or java developer, nor do I pretend to be.

> But I know that flash is very effective at pushing image rendinering

> resource requirements out to the client, rather than relying on enormous

> amounts of server-side CPU power.

... but i was also making the point that if you "don't know anything

about Java client-side rendering" and are "not a flash or java developer"

perhaps you should refrain from spouting technical jargonese on the

subject.  i know what you're getting but i don't think it's representative

of java or flash.
the primary reason for flash performing better is that it has better

development tools (and a more mature/focused API) for these things.

everything you'd need is also available in java.  as i said, java is

a language, flash is a solution.  one could build the same solutions

in java, should they choose to engage that, and make them just as

performant (qualified, of course, by the platform requirements); it

would just take a lot more work.
[ ... ]

quoted text
> If you dismiss my comments as fancy, you simply have no experience in

> this arena.  No reason to be hostile about it.

apologies again, it was meant as a lighthearted jibe.
p.s: i have some experience in both platforms but would not claim to

be an expert in either

p.p.s: i expect the server side demands you are experiencing are from

a jvm on the server not the actual application demands that you are

correlating them to (although i do understand the overlap)

--

        t

 t

                 w