Valhalla Legends Forums Archive | Web Development | Adobe's Apollo

AuthorMessageTime
NetworksIf you haven't heard of Apollo you really should it's quite an innovative project Adobe's put out even if older competitors were there before:

http://www.codeapollo.com/showthread.php?t=5

Google search and tell me what you think. It goes beyond general application programming and makes things highly web oriented if it wants to. Very cool.
March 21, 2007, 04:45 PM
AndyDude... that looks so awesome. Especially the View Source part. I can't wait to build a few programs in it CheesyMarch 21, 2007, 05:11 PM
ErsanYeah, I read about it at Cerulean Studios, who apparently developed something extremely similar before the beta of Apollo was released, and didn't even know it existed at the time.

After the alpha was released they wrote up a review:
http://blog.ceruleanstudios.com/?p=104

I think it would be cool to develop extensions to existing applications, but I don't think web languages are well-suited at any level for full-scale programs, and I'm sure some idiot flash or web designers are going to think they're real desktop application developers with this runtime, more of a step backwards in performance and resource consumption (which is where application development has been headed for the past couple years with .NET) - but that's just my opinion.

By the way you can get the public alpha of apollo at http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/apollo/
March 21, 2007, 11:35 PM
WarriorWhat's really new with this? Looks like they mash up a bunch of existing technologies. Looks like it'd be slow as hell as well.

Quote
more of a step backwards in performance and resource consumption (which is where application development has been headed for the past couple years with .NET) - but that's just my opinion.

You're still ranting on on something you can't even prove? Why are you trolling?
March 22, 2007, 03:43 PM
Networks
What's really new with this? Looks like they mash up a bunch of existing technologies. Looks like it'd be slow as hell as well.

Quote
more of a step backwards in performance and resource consumption (which is where application development has been headed for the past couple years with .NET) - but that's just my opinion.

You're still ranting on on something you can't even prove? Why are you trolling?


I am not sure if it's new or not, I am sure some older things came out but nonetheless it's a NEW technology to the masses. Ruby is an ancient language and RoR is about 3-4 years old and it's now picking up speed, this is no different.

In my opinion it's definitely new technology and certainly a step forward based on the things it can do. This is cross platform and it is in flash so many of the elements would probably be hard to do in a normal application language for the average programmer. (e.g. animations, smoothness, ease in moving elements, etc.)

I personally like the idea that some applications are being created so we no longer have to necessarily depend on a browser. I think it's quite interesting. I'd bet it would be slow for intense tasks as well but why would use Apollo for that? I'd use it for rich UI's and deploying applications that easily interface with my web application--nothing processor intensive at all honestly.

Someone was wondering the same thing though: http://www.codeapollo.com/showthread.php?t=278

Guess it's not so bad to some extent after all.

Edit: The things you can do with Apollo's UI is nothing like what you can do in real application programming languages--I love that.
March 22, 2007, 07:14 PM
Ersan
You're still ranting on on something you can't even prove? Why are you trolling?
How far does your blind microsoft fanboyism go, jesus christ...  A 5-line windowed app in .NET uses 10MB of system memory, as opposed to 600KB in a COM language, how can you pretend this isn't the case...

Why are you the only person I've ever seen arguing that .NET isn't resource intensive, everyone else just accepts the fact that it is (CPU's are getting faster, RAM is getting cheaper, Hard Drives larger - "what difference does it make").

Not to mention this isn't the place to start another pointless debate.
March 22, 2007, 10:32 PM
Warrior
You're still ranting on on something you can't even prove? Why are you trolling?
How far does your blind microsoft fanboyism go, jesus christ...  A 5-line windowed app in .NET uses 10MB of system memory, as opposed to 600KB in a COM language, how can you pretend this isn't the case...

Why are you the only person I've ever seen arguing that .NET isn't resource intensive, everyone else just accepts the fact that it is (CPU's are getting faster, RAM is getting cheaper, Hard Drives larger - "what difference does it make").

Not to mention this isn't the place to start another pointless debate.

You can't write a Windowed app in 5 lines. It's impossible to directly compare them both due to the complexity of the WinForm classes vs the complexity of the nonmanaged Win32 APIs (which relate to Windowing).

Simply making a program the same length for each isn't sufficient to benchmark their performance or resource usage.

Until you can provide this, you're still wrong and you're still trolling.
March 23, 2007, 03:20 PM
Banana fanna fo fannaI agree FULLY with Ersan on this one. Why all the bloat; why let the terrible development practices that dominate the Web (which, by the way, uses metaphors and technologies designed for DOCUMENTS not APPLICATIONS) start to plague the desktop?

Oh wait, that's right, because everyone hates real applications now.
March 23, 2007, 06:50 PM
AndyGuys, guys. This is a markup language, not a programming language. I for one think web applications should be designed in markup languages. Let real software be written in a real programming language. This is all fancy stuff, not true programming, and anyone who knows anything about programming knows that. But that doesn't mean it's not cool!March 23, 2007, 11:00 PM
WarriorI never said this was a good idea, I was responding to the part of his argument aimed torwards .NET.

I think this is a horrible idea. A universal binary in general is always a bad idea. If you want a truly cross platform application then make provisions for it to run with modified code on the platform of choice.
March 24, 2007, 11:47 AM
Networks
Guys, guys. This is a markup language, not a programming language. I for one think web applications should be designed in markup languages. Let real software be written in a real programming language. This is all fancy stuff, not true programming, and anyone who knows anything about programming knows that. But that doesn't mean it's not cool!

Actually it's combined markup with actionscript 3.0. Actionscript 3.0 gives much of the heart and soul to these applications.
March 24, 2007, 05:53 PM