jQuery VS Flash

Most users don't really care about flash, really. You can indeed do pretty much everything with a nice library + effects such as JQuery.

you don't need to compile anything, and the sources and resources are always at hand (unless you lose the uncompressed javascript, or some css/image files...)
the pages are always (or should be) lightweight
you don't require third party apps to build your site / components
you don't require third party browser plugins for basic animation / interaction
no royalty over Adobe

However, JQuery cannot do natively graphics and other fancy stuff that flash do. But you can find some functionalities in other projects like Raphaël, which uses JQuery, etc.

The bottom line is that as long as you can make something that will attract users and retain them, most client won't care what technology you're using. Until HTML5 is embraced by all major browsers, this will remain a personal choice. Personally, my choice is and will always be JQuery over Flash.

Let me rephrase your question, just so I understand it:

If you limit flash to all the things, that JavaScript can do as well, is there any point in using flash?

Let me think ... uhmmm ... nope. Stick with JavaScript. You'll do just great.

I think, your question is both short sighted and reveals a lack of understanding of the potential of the flash. The features you're talking of are the ones Flash basically had in the last millenium.

What can you create for me using jQuery, I couldn't just use joomla or typo3 for? The guys over from psd2html.com will be glad to make the templates.

jQuery is very popular, because it seems to bring some sort of comfort to the troublesome world of DOM-manipulation. But if you really are interested in client side programming for web apps, you will have to try a little more than that. Frameworks such as qooxdoo, languages such as haXe, platforms such as Flash, Silverlight, JavaFx. Right here and right now, jQuery may seem to satisfy your needs and challenge you. I think (and hope for you), this will change quite soon.

good luck ;)
back2dos

+1 for Raphaël.

DMin 2010-09-06 06:52:42

+1 for Raphaël. =)

Cipi 2010-09-06 07:04:44

Your core point is good. However I don't agree with the rest. For example, an exact copy of an HTML site made in Flash would be signifficantly smaller. The second point is absolutely void. For both HTML and Flash content, you can use commercial and free software. Also point number 4 is suggestive. Yes, you rely on a 3rd party plugin. But you will find, relying on that is better, than relying on the hope, that your site will not be viewed using IE6 or IE7. Then again, Raphael is not lightweight, and performs like crap in older browsers/on older computers.

back2dos 2010-09-06 15:22:28

@back2dos: "For example, an exact copy of an HTML site made in Flash would be signifficantly smaller" - what a ludicrously incorrect statement

BeRecursive 2010-09-06 16:24:39

@BeRecursive: The HTML site you're viewing is 10KB (36K uncompressed), 6K in text and 3.1K in actual content (posts and comments (assume, this is 2K compressed)). This does not include external stylesheet or javascript files. Flash is made to create fat clients. A flash client offering the functionality of stack overflow can be implemented with less than what the static stylesheets and javascript files require (about 120KB compressed). And it could load the actual payload in a format, that uses more than 20% of the overall size. But feel free to provide counter examples.

back2dos 2010-09-06 16:42:18

+1 for Raphael again

Cruachan 2010-09-06 16:53:09

@back2dos: In order for your argument to make any sense that you would have to factor in the size of the plugin. Assuming the user has a fresh install of their operating system and an unaltered browser they could browse stackoverflow at the 120KB size. To view your flash they would need to install the plugin at around 2.6Mb for windows.

BeRecursive 2010-09-06 16:54:15

@BeRecursive: Oh, sorry, that makes total sense of course. Because every time you visit a site, that has flash content, you need to install the plugin, or why exactly? The plugin is not part of the web application (or its traffic), as much as the browser or client OS isn't. Personally, when I have a fresh install of my OS, the browser is signifficantly bigger (since I am not willing to use IE). Also, by your logic, web applications are smaller on computers, which are shipped with an installed OS. Because in any other case, in order to view a website, several hundred MBs need to be installed.

back2dos 2010-09-06 19:12:19

@back2dos: You show me a flash program that shows hello world in a smaller footprint than html and i'll admit defeat

BeRecursive 2010-09-06 19:38:34

@BeRecursive fyi a hello world flash swf is 2kB and html 1kB. But back2dos was not talking about comparing hello worlds rather interactive sites that have functionality. Apples to oranges and all that.

Allan 2010-09-06 23:13:06

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

related questions