Sometimes I am away from computer and have some spare time. I would love to do some programming just for fun or experiments. I can imagine something like a web site that can edit and execute JavaScript (or any other language is OK). But it must be ready for keayboardless tablet.
Unfortunately typing to google anything that contains JavaScript and IDE or Website, will give millions of links not suitable for this request. Hence I write here. This is not to start any flame or unproductive discussion. This is really the only option I can think of.
JSFiddle allows you to write HTML/JavaScript/CSS in one editor and immediately run it.
Take a look at TouchDevelop. It's developed by Microsoft Research and allows you to create apps on your iPad, Android device, etc...
Related
Since there are no answers yet, I'm going to rewrite this question in hopes of an answer (I don't mind discussion, but I know SO is about Q&A). It appears security checks/prompts make it unfeasible to use Flash Player. With this in mind, the question still stands, but please answer based on experience using AIR.
I have a Winforms app written in C# that I need to add VOIP to. I really like how well the Flash Player VOIP solution works, the AEC (echo cancel) is awesome. I know they use Speex, but the implementation is still a lot of work even using Speex, so I'd like to use Adobe's solution directly in my app.
Has anyone done this? What issues will I have? A few I can think of:
IPC between AIR and Winforms app. I assume this is easy and several options, including sockets/network, file i/o, maybe others.
Based on this
Content running in the AIR application sandbox does not need the
permission of the user to access the microphone
I don't think security warnings will be an issue? I'm not sure what a sandbox is yet, but as long as my AIR app can run in this and still talk with my winforms app, then shouldn't be an issue.
I assume the voice capture including enhancements (AEC, NS, Speex, etc) are supported in AIR?
Are there any samples I can run that use voice capture in AIR?
i'm planning on working with titanium.
i want to know if "Same origin policy" can be eliminated by using titanium.
are there any drawbacks in titanium?
please recommend some cross-platforms..
please do leave some suggestions..
Thank you,
SOP is especially used for HTTP. So it doesn't concern titanium since it only use javascript as "local" language that is "translated" into xcode. at the end you got an simple xcode-project and an .app file.
i use it for a quite complex app and it works fine. i needed adding some features as module written in objC since the framework isn't as ongoing concering the iphone API as the native objC, but that worked out fine.
Since you are asking for the drawbacks of Titanium.. here it is..
I would not say that it's cross platform. Even my android app will look different in my Mac compared to the one developed in Windows.
Not all functions will work on Android and iPhone. Some will partially work on the other.
Ti is a biased and Android Developer are always left behind.
Also, if you are developing an Android app like me, you will be facing a lot of problems and Kitchen Sink will not always work. Android development in Ti is very bad and expect to find a lot of bugs.
Contacts API is not even complete as of now (Version 1.60) . I can't even get the contacts email and phone number!
No Bluetooth support
I spent a lot of hours "debugging" and waiting for the emulator rather than serious coding.
API refence and the QA will help a bit but there are more questions than answers.
Ti doesn't even have a proper debugging features as well as IDE. Make sure to dedicate a lot of hours in knowing how it works. I have a hard time finding a good resources to start.
Memory Problem and Leaks are very common.
Gradients will not work in Android (use image instead)
and last thing, Documentation really sucks!
(but still I love Ti despite all of the above)
My concern is that novice users will turn their back to a website which asks them to install Silverlight.
One of the reasons I think they might be scared of installing Silverlight is because they are not aware of what Silverlight actually is.
What's your take on this?
You can see the website riastats.com for information on install base, the main thing is if Silverlight gives an advantage such as the NBC Olympics coverage in United States uses Silverlight because of the Smooth Streaming technology plus the ablity to have a Live DVR where live streams can be "rewound" - all these features are probably better supported by Silverlight has the Client and Server ends can be well integrated (with Microsoft solutions).
I may be a little biased as I am a Silverlight developer, but with a less than 5MB download for runtime, that helps sell it more - especially as it may be a better alternative than the Flex download for Flash if this is required to create a solution that would have worked in Silverlight as it is a larger download.
Check out the silverlight.net showcase you'll see who and where it is being used - you can then make your decision based on this - rather than a few opinions (including mine!).
Well Silverlight is installed on about 50% of pc's now. So it depends on your market. Normal web users (ie. non-developers) tend to install anything you prompt them to if you can clearly and succinctly give them a compelling reason to run your application.
It doesn't tend to matter outside of the work place environments if you use silverlight or flash. What's more important is that your application will solve a problem the user has, and you can communicate that well.
They do not know what is is, marketshare is around 40%. I'd say it's not ready if you want to reach everyone.
However if Flash or javascript is not an option, give a firsttime visitor window informing your clients about silverlight.
I think you're going to have a lot of users on the public internet that don't have it installed. If you're really going for a mass-market site, and you aren't doing a crazy amount of media-rich type content, I would go with something like JQuery to make your Javascript easy and cross-platform.
I know this question has been asked a million times in various ways by different businesses, but I'm wondering the community's opinion on it [There's this question, but in the fast-moving world of tech, a year is a long time]. For hypotheoretical purposes, let's consider a website where users can watch videos, a la YouTube, Hulu, etc. (actually, it's an on-demand transcoding solution, but close enough). The website could deployed:
Using HTML, JavaScript, and HTML5's <video> tag
Using HTML, JavaScript and Flash (like most are right now)
Using HTML, JavaScript and Silverlight just for the video player
Using Silverlight for navigation, creating a rich all-Silverlight experience
(Let's assume, again hypoteoretically, that the all-Silverlight version is not as annoying as most all-Flash pages are today, but instead provides an experience similar to a desktop application)
Which way would be able to reach a large percentage of the population? How would people feel about having to install Silverlight to view a site -- how much would they want to see the content to make them click the install button? What if a user is browsing the site at the library on on another public computer with limited bandwidth, possibly using older hardware and with an unprivileged user account -- how easy would it be for them to install the Silverlight runtime?
I really want to use Silverlight since I like its' model (I've been using it for an internal app at work, and I think it's an excellent platform), however I'm afraid that for a public site, a large percentage of users would not be able to view the site, then Flash may be better option.
EDIT:
Well, the idea is to have a player where users can access videos on their home PCs from the web. So the users usually won't be using a home PC -- they'll be using work PCs, friend's PCs, public PCs, etc. That's why I'm worried about the security/install privileges issue.
Start with what each of technologies can do for you and match that against your requirements re: content delivery. Assuming each is just as good as the other for the purpose at hand, and that you have the requisite skills in each or dont mind learning them to produce your content, then dont see player distribution as a problem.
Users not having the priviledges to install the player should it be absent would generally be considered an edge case. If your site is specifically targeting a user group to which this is more likely to apply then obviously it requires deeper consideration but at the end of the day you're always going to have a percentage of surfers who cant do something, or use something, for some reason. In this case it's likely a small percentage and good design dictates some form of graceful degradation regardless of the technology being deployed.
Your other questions re: user preferences is difficult to gauge. Here is a list of sites that clearly dont think its an issue. You'd have to extrapolate the adoption rate numbers but this link, albeit to an MS blog entry, suggests the adoption rate is high, especially considering Silverlights relatively short life.
You also have to factor in that it's an MS technology so you're going to benefit from Windows Update, etc and the strength of the MS marketing machine.
Recommendation: Go for it. The more the merrier.
..
Richard
This line is the decider for me:
I really want to use Silverlight since I like its' model
If you like Silverlight enough to really want to use it, go for it. The UI will be as useful or as annoying as you make it, so Flash has nothing intrinsic over Silverlight there. It comes down to whether Silverlight will do what you want it to.
HTML5 and its suite of technologies are a far better fit at this level. I went to a Microsoft confrence recently and the HTML5 talks where all booked out and the Silverlight talks had hardly any attendees. You can get a web application to almost have a normal application experience with JQuery ajax and HTML5.
Due it is an MS technology, Silverlight is successful for its short life, like Bing (i believe if it wasn't developed by MS most people wouldn't even know its name). But i would not use it for a website actually, most people dont want to install new things unless they have to. And if your site does not have a content that they will desire, they can go away from your site. I'm a Java developer but i dont use JavaFX for web apps, because most user machines have Flash installed it is a better choice for accessibility reasons. Silverlight is a new field for MS but Flash is around for years and it's one of the main focuses of Adobe.
Has anybody got any real world stories build mobile web sites with NetBiscuits?
Someone told me it was the next big thing in mobile development (http://www.netbiscuits.com/home) and it looks pretty good from their site. Just wondered if anybody (besides them) has actually used it.
From a few months time working with it, I can say that they're indeed one of the best (if not the best) out there. The support is also insanely quick and good.
Only thing making me stop using it is the price. Especially if you're a small company and want to use their POI feature.
However I have yet to find a good replacement. May end up rolling my own version...
Edit: Related question.
They have created an entire xml (bml) based markup language that emulates html that has a very steep learning curve. I would seriously reconsider using it.
I have seen it working nicely. It also supports ASP.NET controls SDK that can be used to write ASP.NET app from Visual Studio. Once this app is deployed on your premise, you can use live bridge agent to connect this app to a Live Bridge server that Net Biscuits hosts. Your app is called a backend app in this case. This is a very useful feature when you do want to have Forms capability in your app and also want it to be accessible on NetBiscuits platform.
Check http://kb.netbiscuits.com/tactile/edc/livebridge_help.html. BiscuitML is also easier to grasp.
Look out for performance issues though. Customers in Australia have had response time issues - probably due to the Cloud Platform being located in USA/UK.