Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I'd like to learn to create a website with processing on the client side.
Here are my goals:
- The program would look like something like Picasa or Lightroom. It means processing lot of pictures in a row
- I'd like the client to download the "image processor" to avoid uploading plenty of pictures on the server (which is slow and frustrating IMHO).
- I also have in mind to create a mobile version of the website
I don't know a lot about internet programming languages but here are my thoughts at the moment:
Flash: I think it would do, but I don't like it (not portable enough from what I read)
Java: This is the one I am thinking of at the moment. But I don't like the idea of asking users to download a third party if they don't have it.
HTML5 + Javascript: I don't what it means regarding Javascript capabilities. Would it be a pain?
Python, Ruby on Rail, C#: I don't know what it means to use them for web programming. I already used Python put as scripting language.
There are for sure other technologies that I am not aware of. Feel free to propose anything else that is mainstream enough to get good support on the internet :)!
Thank you for your help!
I hope you won't think it is a duplicate. I made some search and found this for ex:
Client-side image processing
=> But they already have their core processing since I have nothing!
Modern web browsers support html5 & javascript out of the box - older ones at least have support for javascript unless support for something truely ancient is desired - so considering the compatibility it should be the best one of these alternatives.
Flash needs a flash-plugin and a Java applet needs a jre-plugin.
Have never seen the 4th choice in client-based web-applications really, so not sure about how that would be done.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I know that for a simple static website, using plain HTML.. is the easiest and quickest way. But, what are some use cases between the two options? Is using a framework mostly the best solution?
You can basically see frameworks as pre-written structures for your App.
In other words, frameworks are meant to help you building applications quicker by addressing common development problems.
So, going back to your question, there are not really times where you would prefer vanilla javascript over frontend frameworks due to the incapacity of scaling well, which could result in inscrutable and unmaintainable spaghetti code.
Other bit you would want to consider about frameworks, is their high performance obtained thanks to their virtual DOM (abstract map of the real DOM), which helps handling events to update parts of the App without the need of re-rendering it.
On the other hand, I would suggest to go with a static website using pure HTML and Vanilla JS, only if learning / instructing someone, or if building something really really simple (but rest assure 99% of your commercial websites may suit better under a framework rather than without).
If you want to read more about it, I would suggest the following articles:
https://stackoverflow.blog/2020/02/03/is-it-time-for-a-front-end-framework/
https://gomakethings.com/why-do-people-choose-frameworks-over-vanilla-js/
https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/do-we-still-need-javascript-frameworks-42576735949b/
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I have no prior knowledge on Mobile application development so these might sound a naive question. Basically my requirement is to develop an application that will work on multiple platforms like Android, Blackberry and iOS. Hence, I wanted to know how well is Worklight suited for the job. Basically I wanted to know:
Q1: What are the technical or functionality concerns of Worklight that one should know before going for it.
Q2: Is it better than PhoneGap?
Q3: What are the basic skill sets required for a person to work on Worklight other than Java.
Q4: Are there any Hardware requirements that might be specific to Worklight applications and might cause the developed mobile app to not function on the phone?
I would be grateful to anyone who could help me out.
Thanks in advance.
You must buy a license if you intend on going to Production; the free Developer Edition may not be used for that purpose. It's not for individuals or small businesses, but for medium to large businesses. Other than that, it depends on your end goal.
Worklight cannot be better than Cordova in the sense that Cordova is bundled within Worklight. So anything you can do in Cordova, you can do in Worklight and add on top of this all the features that Worklight provides you with (and for this, please, just take a look at the Worklight website and Information Center).
You need to know HTML, CSS and JavaScript at a decent to very good level. If you want more, you need to know languages such as Java, Objective-C, C#.
No.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I would like to develop a cross-platform application for mobile phones as I would like to just programe once and have the app for the differents platforms we have nowadays.
I took a look of the differents frameworks there are and I would like to skip all of the web bases frameworks, like phonegap, which uses html/javascript, as I feel the applications developed with those framework will not have a good performance. I prefer to develop native applications.
With that in mind, I found LiveCode or Xamarin which look interesting but since I don't have any experiencie with them, I'm not really sure of which one I should take. Apparently, for instance, Xamarin doesn't share all the code you develop...
I need some suggestions and advices with this as I will have to learn to use the framework from the beggining and I don't want to waste my time!
So, any experiencie using any of those frameworks? suggestions? advices?
What is your use-case? For most enterprise apps, HTML5 based apps are good enough. Native apps are better suited for games and multi-media apps.
See this
Titanium Appcelerator has been a standard choice outside of PhoneGap inspired platforms.
I have evaluated most popular platforms and do not want to get into any arguments about the pro's and con's of each of those because that is not what you asked for nor the purpose of this forum.
During my evaluation process over many months, the main decisions eventually came down to whether I needed to brush up on my Java skills and/or learn more about HTML or indeed learn a new programming language.
If you do not have existing skills in Java or HTML, then Livecode is by far the easiest route to follow. Its English language based command set is easy to learn and use during development and to debug and maintain afterwards. There are no awkward sequences of special characters and phrases required to say what you want to achieve. It also has a great 'drag-and-drop' WYSIWYG IDE and speed of development is a fraction to what you will do in other IDE's. Despite its ease of use, Livecode produces cross-platform (IOS, Android, OSX, Windows etc) native apps from a single source code base.
If, on the other hand, you have some good JavaScript experience, then Appcelerator and JQuery Mobile with Phonegap may be better suited for your requirement.
For me personally, it eventually was a no-brainer - Livecode.
Good luck with your endeavours
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
i want to write a simple web app that can connect to databases and display simple text and images. I know a bit of programming - mainly C. Also i have a very short time frame for learning the language and technologies associated with it. Which language would be good/ also what would be a good starting point
If you know C, PHP should come naturally.
It's also:
Widely deployed
Easy to get started
Built exclusively for the web
Plenty of resources for learning
Have a look at Ruby on Rails, especially the screencast on their homepage, “Creating a weblog in 15 minutes with Rails 2”.
The syntax is different from C but on the other hand there’s practically no learning curve for simple web applications.
You can't get much simpler than PHP. It's got C-type syntax. It's available nearly everywhere.
As an alternative to PHP, try Python with Django. It's very quick to learn, a much nicer language than PHP, and has a good community. The only issue is it's not as widely deployed as PHP. But if you control the server then that shouldn't matter.
PHP syntax is similar to C and it won't take much time to build a simple app.
PHP is one of the easiest language i've known :).
Every time you are talking about a web application you get involved into javascript stuff so I say you give node js a try because it's fast and it has a lot of tools that could be integrated into your application with a few commands
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm evaluating DotNetNuke for a project in which an offshore team is going to be doing the development. In short, the application will be a community blogging platform with many similarities to stackoverflow except no questions, just posts. Posts may include an image or video, tags, use info, title, body, community vote (up or down) comments, hotness, and a few other details. They should be taggable, sortable, categorizeable (beyond what a single set of tags provide) In the future the site will carry forums, a calendar, and a couple of other features for which there are modules available for DotNetNuke. Additionally, this site will incorporate a user experience that will include a lot of custom skinning.
Thoughts?
Using a web application framework (such as DotNetNuke) has a ton of benefits to help you get up and running faster and do less work when creating custom functionality.
However, you have to realize that you're basically incorporating tons of code into your project that you may not be familiar with. No matter how good the code is and how easy the framework is to learn, there's still going to be a significant learning curve for you and your team.
Your decision making process (if you're still deciding whether or not to use DotNetNuke), should include (in addition to reading, talking and other general investigation):
Downloading the application from Codeplex and checking out the source.
Investigating the third party modules that are out there.
Downloading a free module or two that comes with source, and try to reverse engineer the creator's development process. How did she integrate with the framework, what features did she take advantage of, what was written from scratch?
One place where DotNetNuke (or any other framework with tons of extensions) available can really shine is taking existing extensions that are available and customize them. If you need to implement a given feature, check out the solutions in the third party extension community first. You can probably find one that gets you a good percentage of the way there and use it as a foundation for your feature.
For example, if you want a photo gallery on your site, you probably don't want to write it from scratch. There are three major photo galleries out there that sell the source code. The core gallery module is free, simple gallery is cheap, and the source for ultra media gallery is available for a reasonable amount compared to writing it yourself. Any of these could give you a good head start in implementing your features.