Richard Leggett on New Media

• Home
• Contact
• Log in

6 comments

1. § Aral Balkan said on : 02/02/07 @ 05:23
   I installed the Mac plugin but it still didn't display on OS X. Looks like cross-platform, Microsoft style :)
2. § Emmanuel Okyere said on : 02/02/07 @ 06:30
   works on safari (on mac OS X) here... I think the javascript prevents Firefox 2 (which is not officially supported) from working though; and I can't be bothered to d'load 1.5 (so bummer there)
   
   we are all ms-bashers... but a little objectivity every now and then doesn't hurt either
   
   -- eokyere :)
3. § John Dowdell said on : 02/02/07 @ 07:42
   "...this would have been very difficult to do using JavaScript..."
   
   But the logic engine *is* the hosting browser's JavaScript engine, isn't it? or maybe that's what the "as it currently does" qualifies?
   
   (It's a confusing story, but from my understanding, there's Vista and enhanced-XP native-code apps, then there's Mac/Win apps with plugin graphics and CLR logic (not yet available), and then there's the current plugin graphics and FABridge-style logic type of application. They share similar names, but the Windows conversation is about three distinct classes of application.)
   
   There was an ActionScript emulation of Vista last year, but it looks like the URL got changed to a porn site.
   http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd/archives/2006/05/vista_in_flash.cfm
   
   jd/adobe
   
   
   
4. § Richard Leggett® said on : 02/02/07 @ 07:51
   Hey John,
   
   It is confusing definitely, I've even seen some Adobe folk thinking WPF/E has hardware acceleration and 3D which of course there isn't, that's WPF which is Win only. So I guess the name similarity isn't helping here.
   
   Just to clarify, the JavaScript is being executed by the browser, interacting with the control using the XAML DOM to do things like add event listeners, create elements and move things around.
   
   As always I posted this through admiration of another developer who has done something difficult (comparatively) or unexpected with a technology. I saw the Flash versions a while back that far exceeded this, but it was a nice solid attempt here and interesting nonetheless.
5. § Richard Leggett® said on : 02/02/07 @ 07:55
   Sorry I've just realised my wording there was off, using the past tense the meaning of "would" is possibly misleading. I mean't that as it is using JavaScript indirectly modifying the visual elements, this sort of thing *is* more difficult to achieve than say using ActionScript which is tied into the visuals directly, please mentally replace "would have been" for "is". Cheers ;)
6. § John Dowdell said on : 02/02/07 @ 11:54
   "... please mentally replace 'would have been' for 'is'."
   
   uhm... thank goodness it's Friday, I think.... ;-)
   
   cya, jd

Comments are closed for this post.