 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
If you have extra $379, read the 7-page Forrester report on the subject. If you don't, read my blogs for free - I came to the same conclusion - go with Flex. Or, you can read this blog of Ryan Stewart who read this report.
We've been writing about this before, and you should not miss an important statement highlighted in this report - if you use AJAX most likely you'll go either with a commercial or a home-grown AJAX framework. In either case you should compare not AJAX vs. Flex, but a particular AJAX framework backed by a small group of developers of the company XYZ vs. Flex backed by Adobe. This makes a difference, doesn't it?
One more reminder - regardless of what AJAX framework you use, you are going to deploy JavaScript. I have a question to those who argue that today's JavaScript is a good language for development of enterprise applications, "Why every vendor of AJAX framework starts their infomercials with a statement 'With our framework you will not need to write even a line of JavaScript?' "
But AJAX deserves a credit for turning people towards RIA development. Eventually, developers will realize that it's not as rosy as promised and will look for a different RIA solution. But if you are already in a RIA state of mind, you'll never go back to plain HTML Web pages. Remember Hotel California? You can checkout any time you like, But you can never leave!
Now, real quick $379/7=$54.14. Both Forrester and I write the same thing, but they charge $54 per page, while I write all my blogs and articles for free. Life is not fair. Should I just change my last name to Forrester?
Yakov,
I agree that in the end you are still deploying JavaScript if you choose
AJAX. But I do not consider, let say google web tool kit (GWT) as framework
backed by a small group of developers of the company XYZ, who don't know
what they are doing!
Greg, I do not thing that Google put up a large team to develop GWT. At
least you can't compare it with Adobe's commitment with Flex/Apollo.
For the record - I never said that developers of a company XYZ do not know
what they are doing. Do not make things up.
I apologize for my previous statment. But still, GWT is OpenSouce, right?
So, how many developers are there?
I believe you are not giving enough credit to the JSF approach to AJAX.
Yes, you are deploying JavaScript, but as an application developer you
don't need to know or worry what JavaScript is deployed, you build the
application out of UI components. As an extra point, JSF is a standard
technology while Flex is not.
"Hiding complexity" is a meningful term. It does not mean you can develop
on a tecnology you dont know or you don't want to code (in this case
javascript). The complexity hiders can have many problems, I had worked in
large core banking exchange project where famous j2ee complexity hider
tools failed daily (there was even a term "lets open the hood" which is
used for modifying the generated code). So I believe whichever you prefer
you have to have good knowledge (and will to work on) of underlying system
otherwise when things go wrong you can only watch (or have to work on a
hated platform). Thats where I agree with Yakov I don't much like to use
javascript which makes flex a better approach than ajax frameworks.
Maybe "hiding the complexity" is not the best term to use. But then what is
the difference between a JSF AJAX component and Flex component? A developer
or a team of developers spent time developing this component. Do all people
know how Flex works behind the scenes?
Maxim, I am not a flex or AJAX expert, but as far as I know, Flex
components are written in ActionScript whereas AJAX components are written
in javascript. I would prefer Flex because ActionScript is object oriented
and easy to extend.
What about OpenLaszlo: it is open and can generate AJax code or flash?
In response to actiona script being Object Orented, and more extendable
than JavaScript, this is clearly not the case. JS is OO natively. Most
people choose not to develop it that way, but it is an Object Oriented
language at it's base native code level.
In response to the "Under the Hood" mention above, I completely agree that
hiding complexity is only ok, ONLY ok when you know what how the complexity
works underneath. I recall another development language that tried to wrap
up html and dom for you, it was called coldfusion. Then the
tumbleweeds blew by.
Finally, let's not forget, Ajax is simply a methodolgy, a way of doing
things, it does not require a full scale development architecture, it is
merely a tool for people to use as they wish, or don't wish. I personally
don't see a comparison between Flex and Ajax. Ajax makes a request.
Period, it does not build a RIA application for you. That would likely be
DHTML that does that ;)
