It isn't only that the tools cost money and the format is less open. If I believed that Flash were superior technology for what we're doing (a complex web app), we'd be using it. For me, the real issue is that Flash doesn't fit the web as well as Ajax. That's a big deal.
One hears frequent complaints about how awful it is to have to cobble applications out of HTML/JS/CSS and coax them into running in browsers that were never designed for that. That's true, but it begs a question: why, if it's so awful, do so many people do it? It must have huge value to justify all that effort.
There are all kinds of subtle differences between programming for the web and programming for a desktop-like environment embedded in a web browser. I think it's a mistake to assume that the latter would be better if only we could have it.
There's another way to look at this. One reason the "bad" approach often succeeds while the "good" approach fails is that what seems good is based on previous experiences that don't quite fit what's emerging. Meanwhile the "bad" approaches seem bad because they're messy and chaotic, yet they contain something important and new that is worth the messiness. This is how I look at Flash. People want to program in what they think of as the proper way to build applications. But if it comes at the cost of taking the "web" out of web apps, it's not worth it.
why are people "cobbling out applications if it is so hard?" - shame for one. I think many people feel ashamed to abandon the hard path and take the easy path. But, open standards aside (which should be the real reason), if something fits well (both as a solution and with adoption) why not?
actually shame is not such a dumb reason... combine that with uncertainty of the future...
if an open standard fails then people wont get too much flak for following it as it was an "open" standard..
starting following or adopting a proprietary and how are you going to explain (to who ever you have to explain) your choice of the chosen standard, when (a) open standards do take over or (b) a different proprietary standard wins the war?
dont get me wrong.. i never said smart people dont do Ajax. On the contrary you have to have lots of patience and brains to want to play around with the inconsistencies with a billion browsers. Lack of said brain cells made me take the easy way out ...
One hears frequent complaints about how awful it is to have to cobble applications out of HTML/JS/CSS and coax them into running in browsers that were never designed for that. That's true, but it begs a question: why, if it's so awful, do so many people do it? It must have huge value to justify all that effort.
There are all kinds of subtle differences between programming for the web and programming for a desktop-like environment embedded in a web browser. I think it's a mistake to assume that the latter would be better if only we could have it.
There's another way to look at this. One reason the "bad" approach often succeeds while the "good" approach fails is that what seems good is based on previous experiences that don't quite fit what's emerging. Meanwhile the "bad" approaches seem bad because they're messy and chaotic, yet they contain something important and new that is worth the messiness. This is how I look at Flash. People want to program in what they think of as the proper way to build applications. But if it comes at the cost of taking the "web" out of web apps, it's not worth it.