Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Silverlight 4 vs. Adobe Flash 10.1

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the there-could-be-only-one dept.

Programming 379

superapecommando writes "The richest RIA platforms today (and for the foreseeable future) come from clashing titans Adobe and Microsoft, whose Flash and Silverlight platforms both combine excellent tools for developers and designers, broad client support, strong support for server-side technologies, digital rights management capabilities, and the ability to satisfy use cases as varied as enterprise dashboards, live video streaming, and online games. And each has spawned new updates, to Flash 10.1/AIR 2 and Silverlight 4 respectively, which put them on a near-level playing field. Which one should you choose?"

cancel ×

379 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Alien Versus Predator (4, Funny)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300082)

Insert your own joke here.

Re:Alien Versus Predator (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33300102)

Two peanuts were walking down the street. One was assaulted.

Re:Alien Versus Predator (3, Interesting)

TheJokeExplainer (1760894) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300906)

Wake me up when Microsoft comes up with a tool that allows non-coder graphic designers or animators to create entire apps in Silverlight with the same ease that you can with Flash.

That's the assumption sideline-commenting non-designer coders who aren't in the web or multimedia industry make, like a lot of guys here in Slashdot who do mostly non-frontend stuff. Until then, don't expect Flash to vanish anytime soon.

Same case goes for HTML5. Without proper authoring tools for the non-programmer layman, don't expect any other tech to knock off Flash from its perch. Nothing comes close to the Flash Professional authoring tool's ability for creating vector animations and integrating motion, sound and interactivity with ease today.

Even then, Adobe CTO Kevin Lynch announced that Adobe would be the 1st one to build the same kind of tools for HTML5. In fact, they've already built HTML5 + CSS3 support for Dreamweaver [adobe.com] .

As for video, there's a good reason Flash exploded on the net long before it had the capability to play videos, so don't expect alternative video players to end it either.

Heck, I heard even Blizzard used Flash for certain parts of Starcraft 2's UI. [citation needed]

Re:Alien Versus Predator (3, Funny)

naz404 (1282810) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300944)

Two atoms were walking down a street.

One of them goes: "Stop! I think I just lost an electron!"

"Are you sure?"

"Yeah, I'm positive!"

Re:Alien Versus Predator (-1, Flamebait)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300134)

A priest and a rabbi are walking down the street when they see a little boy. The priest says to the rabbi, "Hey, let's go fuck that little boy!"

The rabbi says, "Outta what?"

Re:Alien Versus Predator (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33300216)

A guy walks into a bar and sees a dog lying in the corner licking his balls. He turns to the bartender and says, "Boy, I wish I could do that."

The Bartender replies, "You'd better try petting him first."

Re:Alien Versus Predator (1)

Yamata no Orochi (1626135) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300302)

I don't think you grasped the theme here.

Re:Alien Versus Predator (2, Funny)

Andrewkov (140579) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300336)

Which one would you choose? That's like asking if you would prefer a punch in the face or a kick in the groin.

Re:Alien Versus Predator (5, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300488)

A Microsoft developer and an Adobe developer walk into a bar. Neither one lost their iPhone prototype.

Re:Alien Versus Predator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33300518)

CmdrTaco tells the dr that he's having a hard time getting it up for kathleen and needs some viagra. The doctor gives him a pill and tells him to go home and try it out. When he gets home he discovers that kathleen is gone. So he calls up the dr, "Dr. I took the viagra but kathleen is gone! What should I do?"

The dcotor thinks for a moment. "Well, is there anyone else you could have sex with?"

"Yeah, Hemos, but I don't need viagra for him!"

Re:Alien Versus Predator (1)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300694)

Insert your own joke here.

How do you stop a dog from shagging your leg?

Suck it off first.

Which one should you choose? (3, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300114)

Which one should you choose?

The one with the largest tits? No, wait, that's for assistants.

I don't fricking care as long as the page works? Yep, that's the one for the devs.

Which one should you choose? (2, Insightful)

EddydaSquige (552178) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300120)

Neither.

Absolutely (2, Insightful)

Casandro (751346) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300230)

At the moment it's better to wait than to use any of those two. They both have no long-term future.

However if you only have a short term project and you really need something _now_, Flash is just somewhat more availiable.

Re:Absolutely (5, Insightful)

gaspyy (514539) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300452)

"Somewhat" is an understatement.
Flash is ubiquitous. You'd be hard-pressed to find a computer without it. With Silverlight, MS had to pay developers to build something with it and in many cases (NYTimes) thy still abandoned it. The availability is 98% Flash, 5-10% Silverlight.

As for waiting, HTML5 and strong support is years away. Don't be fooled by "Browser X scores 100/100 on Acid 3" -- I am working on a HTML5/CSS3 project right now and all browsers have major rendering bugs and omissions, most of them documented (aliasing for transformed objects, no clipping in some instances when border-radius is used and many more).

Even ignoring older versions of IE, developing any complex app for Firefox, Webkit and Opera is still a daunting task.

"HTML5" may be the newest buzzword, much like "ajax" and "web 2.0" but the reality is in many many cases Flash would give better results in less time and with broader reach.

Re:Absolutely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33300682)

...the reality is in many many cases Flash would give better results in less time and with broader reach.

blocked

Re:Absolutely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33300880)

Actually, Silverlight is more like 63% (and growing), not 5-10%. http://www.riastats.com/#

Re:Absolutely (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33300898)

The only reason Silverlight has any install base at all is that Microsoft pushed it out through Windows Update.

Re:Which one should you choose? (1)

GoodBuddy (1846360) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300392)

Neither is the correct answer. Or more specifically, HTML5.

Re:Which one should you choose? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33300430)

Yes...because HTML5 solves everything
*rolls eyes*

Re:Which one should you choose? (2, Insightful)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300604)

Neither is the correct answer. Or more specifically, HTML5.

To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Or that would be the analogy, if HTML5 adoption wasn't in its infancy and inconsistently implemented where it is supported.

Re:Which one should you choose? (4, Insightful)

49152 (690909) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300878)

In the long run, maybe.

It will all depend on whether Microsoft will support it properly in their future web browsers, they might say their committed to supporting all kinds of standards right now, but I have heard that from them before, so I want hold my breath.

If you actually need to make something for a paying customer right now then unfortunately Flash is very often the correct (or even the only) choice right now. Silverlight may be good enough or even better in many respects but does not come anywhere near the reach of Flash. Flash is basically everywhere. The only exception is hand-held devices but on those I would in fact agree with Steve Jobs, it is usually better to make the effort to create a native version.

Really! I do wish html5 was ready and available everywhere, but it is not. Maybe in 3 to 5 years when it has reached something like 50% of the browsers 'out there'. Right now it is just a toy to play with to get a glimpse of what the future may behold.

This does not mean I disagree with the ideas behind HTML5 or open standards, by all means it would be perfect if I could use it in my projects right now. But my customers actually require something that would run on (at least) 95% of all Internet connected computers without the user installing anything Flash meats that criteria, Silverlight does not and HTML5 does not even show up on the radar yet.

At least there is some hope that the future will be brighter. :-)

To appease the most visitors with ease (5, Insightful)

bemenaker (852000) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300122)

I would go with Flash just because most people have it. The install base is substantially higher than silverlight.

Re:To appease the most visitors with ease (1)

anarche (1525323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300136)

What? A serious answer?

I agree with you. Just coz I'm a google fanboi.

Re:To appease the most visitors with ease (5, Informative)

jijacob (943393) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300152)

Silverlight has absolutely abysmal support on Linux. Seems like the only Silverlight applications that are actually publicly use stuff not included in Moonlight. Flash may use what seems like an unnecessary amount of CPU, but at least it works. Booting a VM just to watch online video hardly seems worth it when there are other easier (less legal) alternatives.

Re:To appease the most visitors with ease (4, Funny)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300214)

Silverlight has abysmal support on WINDOWS! I have all the dev tools installed and certain Microsoft pages still ask me to install silverlight when I visit them.

Re:To appease the most visitors with ease (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33300462)

care to give an example? I'd love to see it.

Re:To appease the most visitors with ease (2, Informative)

infamous_blah (1224522) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300444)

Agreed. Seems like basically anything using features above Silverlight 2 doesn't work in Moonlight, e.g. Netflix or kivabank.org

WebGL (3, Interesting)

advance-software (1770510) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300130)

Ummm ... how are either of the above better than WebGL + natively JIT compiled Javascript ?

Re:WebGL (4, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300154)

how are either of the above better than WebGL + natively JIT compiled Javascript ?

A catchier name.

WebGL is the future, though not the present (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300178)

Firefox 3 doesn't support WebGL, and Firefox 4 isn't due out until November according to Wikipedia. Wikipedia's article about Safari doesn't even mention WebGL. Requiring Internet Explorer users to install Chrome Frame for its WebGL and JavaScript engine is just as much a logistical barrier as requiring them to install Silverlight.

Re:WebGL is the future, though not the present (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300412)

Firefox 3 doesn't support WebGL

Really? It works for me, although you need to use the non-standard namespace because it currently only implements a draft (Firefox 3.6).

Wikipedia's article about Safari doesn't even mention WebGL

It's in the WebKit nightly builds. I think it's in the latest shipping Safari, but only enabled if you write a user defaults value you enable it.

Re:WebGL is the future, though not the present (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300578)

It works for me, although you need to use the non-standard namespace because it currently only implements a draft (Firefox 3.6).

What might this namespace be called, so that I can Google it? I tried Google searches for firefox 3.6 webgl and firefox 3.6 webgl namespace but neither appeared to produce relevant results.

It's in the WebKit nightly builds.

This page, last updated a week ago [learningwebgl.com] , states that that only Snow Leopard supports this version of WebKit. Users of Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) aren't likely to buy a copy of 10.6 (Snow Leopard) just to see your site.

I'm guessing that in the short run, WebGL apps will have to use a layer written in JavaScript that implements a subset of WebGL in terms of the 2D canvas, doing all the T&L in script, using various tricks with the transformation matrix [tulrich.com] to get triangles to draw, and accepting gaps between triangles, induced by browsers' coverage-based antialiasing, as a cost of doing business.

Re:WebGL is the future, though not the present (1)

advance-software (1770510) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300802)

Firefox 4 beta 3 supports WebGL. It's solid, stable & fast. Dump FF3.

You need to set webgl.enabled_for_all_sites to true via about:config for now.

Once you've installed & done that, try some of these :

  http://learningwebgl.com/blog/?page_id=1217 [learningwebgl.com]

Both feed on developers (3, Insightful)

turkeyfish (950384) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300144)

Neither one. Given the prices they are asking, particularly for upgrades after they have their hooks into you. You might as well sign over a significant percentage of your annual income over to their CEO's retirement package as you become an indentured developer.

Better for the community to seek and develop Open Source Solutions with equivalent functionality via web service architectures. Given the way the global economy and the environment upon which it is based is headed, we need cheaper and more efficient solutions, not ever more expensive ones that lock developers in.

Re:Both feed on developers (2, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300238)

Given the prices they are asking

There exists free software to produce rich Internet applications for all three platforms: Flash Player, Silverlight, and HTML5. Yes, you do need a Windows license to test your RIA properly, but if you rely on your web site to pay for food and rent in a developed country, $300 every three years is chump change.

Better for the community to seek and develop Open Source Solutions with equivalent functionality

You mean like haXe and Gnash for Flash Player, MonoDevelop and Moonlight for Silverlight, and Firefox with developer extensions for HTML5?

Re:Both feed on developers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33300428)

If it only costs you $300 every three years then you are infringing on copyright. If not post your suppliers contact info because last time I checked it was in the thousands.

Whose copyright (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300626)

If it only costs you $300 every three years then you are infringing on copyright.

Windows Vista Business costs $300. Windows 7 Professional costs $300. You use development tools distributed as free software, and you either run the free development tools on Windows or you run them on Linux and then test on a Windows machine on the same network. Whose copyright does this scenario infringe?

Neither (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300146)

Which one should you choose?

HTML 5. Until that's finalized, I luckily don't require any of the features these two hold as RIAs (like Video). And, if I had the need for video, I would only evaluate these two on their video capabilities and only use it for that component on my content. And since neither of them list Ogg Theora in their codecs on this review and that's what browsers I care about support so far in HTML 5, I'd have to weigh storing videos in multiple codecs ... everyone's really done such a good job of making me just not want to think about video right now as a web developer. I guess I suffer from video anxiety.

Side note: Anyone else find that these *world sites release similar yet different articles daily [infoworld.com] ?

Re:Neither (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33300180)

That's because the InfoWorld and TechWorld articles are one and the same written by James R. Borck.

Re:Neither (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33300218)

You're EXTREMELY boring. You've won the boring game; you bore like nobody else.

Chrome Frame install base, or lack thereof (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300260)

HTML 5

Viewing HTML5 properly on Windows requires either A. installing the Google Chrome Frame BHO for Internet Explorer or B. installing another web browser. I'd estimate that far more PC users have Flash Player installed than Chrome Frame.

Re:Chrome Frame install base, or lack thereof (2, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300556)

Also to add that most Modern Commercial Web developers are more concerned about having computability across browsers then any Open vs closed standard. Being that Microsoft is dragging on HTML 5 support most will stay with flash as it will do what they need functionally. While supporting and working with 99.99% of the user base.

Flash works for Linux, Windows, Mac, and even for some other Unixes (how ever may not be the most updated). And for IE, Firefox, Chrome, Safari. All in all a good choice.
Silverlight, I would avoid it as it isn't that much better then flash, and I see it as more of an ActiveX replacement then a Flash Replacement where it will run on the more controlled internal networks.

HTML 5 has promise and I am actually doing a lot of research into it. As it will be soon fully supported by the wider market. However it will not replace Flash and Silverlight but it will replace a lot of the need of Flash and Sliverlights basic features, which is good too. As we shouldn't need to work on a new platform just for vector graphics.

Re:Neither (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33300480)

Video is only the tip of the iceberg.

Silverlight is a cross-browser, cross-platform, and cross-device plug-in used for creating rich applications on the Internet. In addition to a powerful video stack that makes it easy to deliver video using most of the widely available codecs, Silverlight also boasts a powerful client networking stack (making it easy to connect to third-party services like Facebook and Twitter, using SOAP, REST, or even raw TCP sockets). It has a robust data access model that uses a concept known as data-binding to render data. This makes it ideal for line of business applications due to the relative ease of taking business classes and exposing the data through a rich, interactive user experience. Silverlight also boasts a very robust layout and styling engine and comes with literally hundreds of controls and behaviors ready to be integrated into your applications.

http://www.wintellect.com/CS/blogs/jlikness/archive/2010/02/23/top-10-silverlight-myths-and-the-facts-to-bust-them.aspx

Re:Neither (3, Insightful)

ProppaT (557551) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300580)

Fine, HTML 5. HTML 5 is great, we can all agree on that. Now which video codec? The one nice thing about Silverlight and Flash is that they're, more or less, all inclusive packages. HTML 5 relies on too many outside variables ATM to make it viable. The openness of HTML 5 is a blessing and a curse. We still need Silverlight and Flash for the time being for the 75% of the market who's never heard of a codec. The road to HTML 5 is going to be an ugly and bloody one...

Re:Neither (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300624)

Right now, there aren't any HTML5 methods of embedding live video. Apple's got HTTP Live Streaming, but it isn't a standard or universally supported.

HTML5 is great, but we need to be very, very, very careful of fragmentation [alistapart.com] and non-standard features.

Re:Neither (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300766)

I know this is going to piss on the HTML5 love-fest, but for those of us who *do* need web video (especially interactive video), Flash is still the most efficient and well-deployed way to go. Fanaticism can't change reality.

HTML5+SVG+CSS3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33300158)

closed standards are clumsy to me.
With version 9, IE will also support open standards nicely.
Silverlight and Flash only work decently when you're in a closed environment; big company where everybody is guaranteed to have the same system.
I know Silverlight and Flash are able to do some things HTML5etc can't do (yet?), but part of those are a bad idea anyway (DRM).

Re:HTML5+SVG+CSS3 (1, Insightful)

6031769 (829845) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300236)

With version 9, IE will also support open standards nicely.

That's quite an assertion - unless by "nicely" you mean "barely", "feebly" or "tortuously". Given the fantastic history of standard compliance in Microsoft Internet Explorer, you'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

Re:HTML5+SVG+CSS3 (1)

flex941 (521675) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300284)

Forgiven.

Re:HTML5+SVG+CSS3 (1)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300388)

The latest preview builds of IE9 are scoring in the mid 90's on the ACID3 test, so it is probably fair to say that the final release should play nicely with web pages that have been built using open standards and lack IE specific hacks.

That is not the same thing as saying that it won't come with a lot of legacy baggage and proprietary extensions to try and lure developers into another re-run of the IE6/ActiveX fiasco that we are all still paying for today, a decade later. The only thing that is going to kill that is when corporates are unable to legally install IE6 compatible versions of Windows and have no choice but to retire the existing desktop systems that do.

Choices (1)

Andrewkov (140579) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300160)

Choose the one that works on all mobile devices including iPads and iPhones.

Re:Choices (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300306)

Choose the one that works on all mobile devices including iPads and iPhones.

Also including Windows Mobile devices, which run IE?

And when did Safari for iOS gain webcam support for web applications? Without it, you can't make something like Chatroulette.

Re:Choices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33300784)

Or you could just you a native application instead of having everything go through the browser.

Re:Choices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33300318)

From what I've seen, basic HTML tricks perform poorly on iOS. Flash has been on mobile devices in some form about four years longer than Webkit has; until browsers can support rich media across multiple platforms, HTML will offer an inconsistent user experience.

Also, there's almost no tooling for rich HTML. If there was an animation/design/interaction suite for creating and deploying rich media as HTML, it'd have a lot more momentum

Re:Choices (2, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300788)

I like how Iphone support is seen as important when it lacks this feature that many other phones have; yet companies (and even public funded organisations like the BBC and Government) are happy to write proprietary apps only for those with Iphones...

There's an uproar when the BBC or Government requires the use of things like Windows or Flash (and rightly so), even though 90%+ of the population can use them. But requiring the use of an Iphone, that only ~3% of the mobile phone population have? Oh, perfectly fine. The correct response is that we should always be supporting open cross-platform solutions, of course.

HTML5 for everyone please!! (1)

cashxx (1882268) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300182)

Neither.......HTML5......no plugins to crash or cause instability. As long as the browser supports HTML5 it all good open source, none of this proprietary crap like Silverlight and Flash!! Been wanting to see flash go away for years and then Microsoft came out with Silverlight and its just another plugin you have to worry about and keep updated. HTML5 for everyone!! All flash is good for is advertisements and youporn sites.

Re:HTML5 for everyone please!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33300326)

Youporn now works on HTML5!

Chrome Frame, auto-updates, and animation (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300370)

Neither.......HTML5......no plugins to crash or cause instability.

Google Chrome Frame, the HTML5 viewer for Internet Explorer, is just as much a plugin as Flash Player or Silverlight.

Been wanting to see flash go away for years and then Microsoft came out with Silverlight and its just another plugin you have to worry about and keep updated.

In that case, the answer is not eliminating Flash Player or Silverlight but instead automatic updates. Flash Player for Windows appears to have it covered; if an update is available, it grabs the update automatically the next time you log in to your user account.

HTML5 for everyone!! All flash is good for is advertisements and youporn sites.

How do you recommend making a vector animated series like Homestar Runner without Flash? Making it in Flash and then rendering the SWF to WebM for public distribution just bloats the file size by a factor of ten.

Re:Chrome Frame, auto-updates, and animation (1)

naz404 (1282810) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300524)

Badly written Javascript is just as bad or even worse than Flash.

All this AJAX-ification of the web (you too, Skashdot!) has made web browsing almost impossible for older sub-500MHz machines. Turning off both Flash & Javascript is the only way to be able to browse decently on a 400MHz One Laptop Per Child XO-1 machine [wikipedia.org] , and some sites like Facebook stop functioning properly (profile wall posts no longer display, etc) when Javascript is turned off.

Re:HTML5 for everyone please!! (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300672)

At this point, HTML5 is like communism -- workable in theory, but only in theory.

In the real world, people choose between solutions that work for a majority of users right now.

Easy Choice (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300188)

Which one should you choose?

I know which choice I'm making - HTML5.

JavaFX (3, Funny)

mattwrock (1630159) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300190)

I know there is a Java bias here, but as a Swing developer JavaFX really rocks. I like that I can do the same things as Adobe and Microsoft, but code in my preferred language. The enterprise tools are coming out now, but the ability to animate objects easily makes you think out of the box for some applications. If you are a Java guy, check it out!

Re:JavaFX (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33300292)

You know, I was thinking that the headline of this article made it sound like a special olympics boxing bout. Then you mentioned Java's Swing and suddenly I'm reminded of the my battles against that UI framework and it's glut of useless layout managers. Given a choice between coding in Java/Swing and being assailed by a retard with a baseball bat, I'd volunteer for the latter.

Re:JavaFX (4, Interesting)

WankersRevenge (452399) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300616)

Java's layout managers are pretty atrocious ... the gridbag layout managed to achieve a state of sadomasochistic perfection that hasn't been seen since the Middle Ages when plague victims would whip themselves for thinking God was mad at them. But the whole state of UI developing is nightmarish. Whenever I nested layers upon layers of layout managers, I felt like an ancient Incan, setting traps in a tomb for any poor suckers wishing to alter my application UI. Of course, that poor sucker was usually me.

In any case, some dude actually realized the insanity of the process and wrote his own layout manager called Mig Layout [miglayout.com] which puts an end to nesting and actually makes sense. Dare I say easy? I rewrote my last app in it and never turned back. Give it whirl although keep the retard with the bat around just in case.

Re:JavaFX (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33300836)

Mig Layout relies on free text arguments for things like resize behaviour - have fun debugging that. GridBagLayout is actually a piece of piss to use, as long as you use the relative positioning as you add widgets. It requires you to actually read the JavaDoc, but hey, you did do that didn't you?

Re:JavaFX (1)

strokerace (912726) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300896)

I was going to mod you up, but instead I figured I would post a somewhat supporting reply.

I've been doing Java development for quite some time. Although I think being assailed by a retard with a baseball bat is worse than working with Java front end technologies, the discussion of which technology to use always brings groans from the development team.

What do you use? Web front ends with JSF or JSP? Do you use something like IceFaces or Trinidad which are implementations of JSF? Do you use Swing/SWT and shoot for some sort of RCP programming model with Java Web Start? Do you pick Adobe's Flex on the front end, Java on the server and go with the baggage of flash?

The one thing I wish Sun would have done with Java is put together a more cohesive and easier to develop front end. I can only assume MS runs circles around Java in this space.

This major weakness of the Java stack means I get trolled all the time by those MS guys! Curse you Sun and now Oracle!!

2022? What kind of FUD BS is that? (2)

dmgxmichael (1219692) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300194)

I know the W3C is slow, but even they can't take 15 years to complete a spec I should hope. HTML 4 was completed in 3 years, as was HTML 3. (2 and 1 I don't believe where ever formalized). If they do take that long then they will have long since ceased to be relevant.

WTF (4, Insightful)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300198)

This is like comparing shit with corn in it, vs. shit with peanuts in it. Which one would *you* rather eat?

Re:WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33300814)

The one with peanuts, hands down.

Re:WTF (1)

mordejai (702496) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300828)

The one with corn, of course!

I'm alergic to peanuts!

Re:WTF (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300888)

This is like comparing shit with corn in it, vs. shit with peanuts in it. Which one would *you* rather eat?

As good as an analogy as that is ... I'm not sure I can finish my peanut butter toast anymore.

That's just wrong.

My gut feeling... (0)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300208)

I dislike adobe for a few reasons, but Microsoft constantly proves their willingness to ignore security flaws and patch out good features and patch in bad things. They almost always do it in such a way as to leave the core product usable, but I don't like it.

Given what I know now, I'll take Flash in a choice purely between the two.

Re:My gut feeling... (1)

ibookdb (1199357) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300416)

Actually most of the malware that people got around me at work was from Adobe Flash and PDF exploits not from Microsoft stuff.

Re:My gut feeling... (1)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300806)

You speak truth, but at the same time those exploits were fixed a lot faster than the year+ that MS often takes. Of the two I've dealt with a lot more machines compromised by MS's apathy towards browser fixes than flash/pdf exploits, but YMMV obviously.

magazine excerpt? (2, Insightful)

DriveDog (822962) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300210)

Sounds like it came straight from a magazine that worships only those spending on ads. I vote neither, but rather to look forward and leave the fossils for future archaeologists to study or laugh about. Seriously, just because it's an ad for both MS and Adobe doesn't mean it isn't an ad.

AJAX (3, Insightful)

Peeteriz (821290) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300220)

Plain old HTML plus AJAX where required, plus whatever parts of HTML5 are working now = superior functionality when compared to Flash/Silverlight, except if you are youtube or a pornsite.

Cross-Platform Compatibility (1)

andy16666 (1592393) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300276)

In my opinion, cross-platform compatibility is of the utmost importance here. I don't have anything in particular against windows, but I have a mix of windows and linux machines and it really limits my choices when some technology refuses to support one or the other. There are relatively few cases of this in the real world, but unfortunately MS Silverlight is one of them.

Re:Cross-Platform Compatibility (1)

SebaSOFT (859957) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300668)

There is no word on the cross-platform compatibility in the Silverlight specification. That sounds like the author gave Silverlight more stars than it has.

Silverlight is going to eat up WPF... (1)

giuseppemag (1100721) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300290)

...in the near future. This means that all Windows (Windows Phone 7, whatever success the platform will actually have) -based development is going to happen in Silverlight. Now WPF/SL is not such a bad platform, Reactive Extensions are a very advanced application of computer science (http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/3687) that is quite powerful once one learns how to use it, and the dependency property mechanism gives is very flexible and allows to move lots of trivial logic in the page markup rather than in the callbacks code.
So if one is interested in building an application that can be ported to WP7 and moved between the cloud and the client with relative ease, then Silverlight is an excellent choice. For web-only applications Flash is so much supported that it would be crazy not to go with it, unless the computational weight of Flash becomes a problem: then the often ligter Silverlight might be a better choice.

None of them, complemented with Flash (2, Insightful)

markus_baertschi (259069) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300294)

Use standard HTML for as much as possible. Complement the rest with flash.

If you choose Silverlight you'll exclude automatically all platforms which are not Windows mainstream (Vista and 7). Flash is well supported about everywhere.

I'm typing this on a Ubuntu workstation with Chrome. No Silverlight available here.

Re:None of them, complemented with Flash (1)

rrossman2 (844318) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300360)

And to add to that, moonlight 1.0 couldn't do a lot of stuff supported by Silverlight. Even if you installed moonlight on ubuntu as a way to try to view silverlight websites, it just didn't work. Rumor was Moonlight 2.0 was "near release" and would most likely fix the issues I was personally encountering, but I never bothered to try again.

Its Funny.. (1)

drcosquared (1720540) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300340)

that in the post about Microsoft rebooting their old series, the link takes you to the Microsoft Flight website which is all done in flash. Why wouldn't they use Sliverlight for their own purposes?

JavaFX (4, Funny)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300342)

JavaFX

Wow (1, Insightful)

wampus (1932) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300356)

There sure are a bunch of asstard HTML5 fanboys out there. These things serve different purposes, and your zealotry won't change that.

Re:Wow (2, Informative)

Derek Pomery (2028) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300466)

Ok, never having had a need for using Flash, I'm kinda curious what that different purpose is?

So far the only features it seems I would need flash for would be microphone and camera support, and I haven't had a need for those.

Canvas and video tags integrate better with the page HTML, CSS and JS. Why wouldn't you use them if you can?

Re:Wow (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300536)

The primary purpose of HTML5 is to drive people to the Apple AppStore.

Re:Wow (2, Insightful)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300656)

That's the problem with most criticisms of Adobe products. People who aren't designers don't use them they way they were intended to be used. It's like watching a novice carpenter complain that his saw is an awful hammer.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33300660)

Heresy, on my /. ?

both dead (1)

Jeek Elemental (976426) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300432)

microsoft will drop silverlight like everything else they make when it fails to take over the world.
flash is barely tolerated since its (sort of) needed for video currently, noone will use when html5 is up.

there will be a short soft retreat of both, flash/silver to html5 converters will be used for awhile, and then theyll be forgotten, leaving only the tears of developers who got sucked in.

Re:both dead (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300774)

At this point, calling Flash dead is like saying that people who buy cars are chumps because we'll all have flying cars instead someday -- a statement that makes sense only if you utterly ignore reality.

Depends on what you need... (1)

Tenbatsu (941692) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300522)

II've in my experience learned that sometimes standards and compatibility aren't as important considering the audience. My clients are the ones paying for their RIA and the ones using it. If I had a choice, it's between HTML supported by AJAX or Flash. It's been around longer and has a huge community. If my client requires something that must be done in Silverlight (whatever that may be) I just don't work for them.

jumped the shark (1)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300570)

It's time for html5. flash and silverlight need to assimilate each other and take their closed-source security nightmares with them.

that depends: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33300586)

- on your target audience (think accessibility, think plugin penetration, etc)
- on your processes
- project budget
- features you want to implement

we (big London digital agency) would try to use html / javascript first, then Flash. Rarely rearely Silverlight. The latter is still clunkier to user for implementation, it is harder to find people who know how to use it and plugin penetration is much lower.

Having said all this, we are doing less and less Flash, and hopefully also less and less Silverlight, not needing any plugins in the future. then again one of my clients runs Lotus Nots and IE6 internally - that's HTML 5 out of the window. That's actually everything out of the window...

Comparing Apples to Rocks (5, Insightful)

inshreds (1813596) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300620)

CmdrTaco, I am stunned to see such a biased and ridiculously slanted summary coming from your desk. Come on... “both combine...strong client support”? Are you kidding? Silverlight only runs fully featured enabled on Windows. Mac users suffer sub-par SilverLight performance due to issues with hardware acceleration, Linux users are left in the cold, and even the Windows technology has an awful track record. Let's take two large rollouts of SilverLight for example: Major League Baseball and Netflix Instant Play.

MLB: It does not take long to see that MLB had such an uproar of customer complaints about SilverLight that the MS player was quickly “benched”: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10212843-93.html [cnet.com]

Netflix: The Netflix subsidized SilverLight player has resulted in an absolute flood of complains and a continual stream of glitches: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10199350-56.html [cnet.com] http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/03/netflix-updates/ [wired.com]

Of course, being that this is /., I would think the fact that SilverLight does not play on any open players or Linux distributions would be enough to reject this summary's premise alone. Flash, in spite of all the horrendous attributes inherent in that technology, at least actually plays on most platforms and mobile devices. Thus, I respectfully disagree with your primary assertion that these two technologies are even on the same playing field.

Why is this comparison made? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33300648)

MS clearly stated that Silverlight is not going to compete with Flash, so why even make this comparison?

Flight home page (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33300666)

Did anyone else notice the topless chick on the right side of the page. Kinda masked by clowds. Very creepy Microsoft. Topless chick that kinda looks like a dude wearing a hat, sunglasses and a radio headset around her neck in a mini skirt. Not sure what you were going for here.

Dukakis vs Bush... (2, Insightful)

chrishillman (852550) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300670)

Wow... are those the only choices? No!

Javascript and HTML do well in a modern browser. That is the first choice.

Flash would be the second choice, that at least has multiple platforms it can run on. You only exclude the iCrap...

Silverlight? NOT the 3rd choice. The third choice is Java (and I hate Java). It is multiplatform but developing for it requires you to be a Java Developer and that is a bridge too far.

Silverlight would be behind Hypercard, RealPlayer, Quicktime and other things that could in no way make a RIA.. because guess what? Silverlight might be able to make a RIA but only on 2 platforms and one of them is worthless...

Oh look another Flash bash thread (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33300892)

No, Steve is a conniving little bastard that's why they're excluding.. oh wai.. it's not an iPhone post?

Flash is shit, I wonder why anyone even bother with it.

The web sucks (1)

Spiked_Three (626260) | more than 3 years ago | (#33300894)

I choose neither. I did not buy a 3+ ghz quad core processor to run a crippled web application.
I do not need a RIA environment to run rudimentary word processors or spreadsheets, plain old HTML form controls would get the job done if I was desperate.
Google mail is doing just fine as is and is about the only Web application I run.
But just like the last 20 years, the mass public will run around with its head cut off about how the web will take over everything, which it hasn't and never will. Jeesh, remember when we were all going to be running Java desktops with web browsers? Like that happened.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>