> Yes, heaven forbid Ary spends his time adding and improving features
> when he should be building a new editor from the ground up.

That's not what I'm saying. First, he's free to do with his time whatever he chooses to. Second, I think it'd be better to decouple debugger and editor. For example, I'd like to use this feature without having to use an entire IDE. Wouldn't it be great to have a free choice what components to use?

Of course, that's only theory. In practice, it's simpler to built on an existing framework, GUI, and so on. And Ary is actually in favor of the fat-IDE-approach. I mean, that's fine, I don't expect him to change anything about this and I respect his opinion.

> In all seriousness, I hate IDEs because they are big, slow, and waste
> vast tracts of prime monitor space.  But I'm willing to put up with that
> for Descent's compile-time view and (hopefully soon) compile-time debugging.
> 
> If I could get that in a super fast, light programming editor, I'd use
> that instead.  But I can't.

As I said, I don't like all-in-one components. Except if it's really a holy grail of an IDE (by definition, everything would be perfect). But yeah, you can't have that. Thus it'd be better to split functionality and features across different pieces of software.

> Although it is annoying when I'm out and about on my little netbook and
> can't use Eclipse.  C'est la vie.

grauzone wrote:
> Daniel Keep wrote:
>> Obviously the large number of people using such sites are trying to prove you wrong.  :P
> 
> They just don't know it better. They probably think their PC isn't fast enough for fullscreen video playback and so on.
> 
> Maybe they don't even know what's making their web browsers / websites so slow. And what component is responsible for playing ads with SOUND.

Perhaps, but they DO have Flash installed in a JavaScript-enabled browser.  And anyway, there are always going to be lemmings who think the internet is called "Explorer" and that removing Windows is illegal.

>> To be fair, the alternatives aren't much better.  Embedding a WMV or MOV is even more annoying, and Java's just a tremendous pain in the arse.
>>
>> It'd be nice if the current efforts to standardise <video> in HTML5 could do away with Flash video et al, but I'm not holding my breath on that.
> 
> There's no technical reason why YouTube couldn't provide a download link for the hidden flv/mp4 file the flash player loads. Actually, there _was_ one video, where YouTube provided a direct link, but that was an exception.
> 
> In fact, hiding the link to the actual video file seems to be some kind of "soft DRM". Like all almost kinds of DRM, it's breakable, but it requires an effort > 0. I don't want to support this.

Maybe for ad revenue?  At least, I *think* YouTube has ads.  I have AdBlock installed, so it's hard to tell...

> (And for video sites like YouTube, I'm not actually missing anything.)

Suit yourself, but it's not all garbage.

>>>> download youtube video
>>> Can't see a download button anywhere on YouTube. Obviously, Google forces users to install Flash.
>>
>> Possessing a burning hatred of Flash isn't going to get everyone else to stop using it.  If that worked, we'd have killed off IE6 years ago.
> 
> Firefox had tremendous success as IE replacement.
> 
> If you want to go that far, Flash had success as Java replacement.

Firefox didn't get to where it is because of hate.  It got there because a lot of people worked VERY hard to push it into the public consciousness.  Lots of advertising and word-of-mouth.

Flash got to where it is because it let people watch shiny animations. Doing animations in Java is non-trivial because it's a programming language, not a content authoring system.  Flash had a really easy to use editor and a small runtime download.

You can't get rid of Flash by loudly shouting "you should all stop using it because it sucks, and you can't replace it with anything so you have to stop watching all those funny LOLCAT videos you love so much."

People will hate you for telling them they're not allowed to watch humorous videos of cats because "I don't like Flash."

> Anyway, I'm not really fond of the idea of foreign, unknown programs running in my web browser. If you think about it, it's ridiculous. At least from the security point of view.

I don't think you can avoid it.  Let's say we could excise the plugin
APIs from every browser tomorrow.  I guarantee you that someone will
release a new browser with a badly thought-out plugin API the day after.
 Not long after that, someone will write the new "must have" plugin, and
then it'll start all over again.

What's the old saying?  All programs expand until they can read mail? s/read mail/be arbitrarily extended/.

>> Either build a better system and get it installed on >90% of the world's PCs or learn to live with it.  :P
> 
> There are dozens of open source video players. Projects like ffmpeg provide good backends for audio/video decoding. And I think even the builtin Windows Media Player can play mp4.
> 
>>   -- Daniel

Those aren't a replacement and you know it.  If using standalone players worked, Flash wouldn't exist today.

People will always prefer being able to see a video in their browser over having to launch an external application.  I've seen people use truly horrific embedded players even when a "use an external application" option WAS provided.

And people will continue to use Flash as long as producers keep using it.  And they'll keep using it so long as it's the only system with near complete ubiquity.  You post video in any other format, and you CANNOT be reasonably certain your viewer can see it.

Incidentally, you say ffmpeg is good, but I suspect that most of the actually *useful* parts of it are illegal.  And hell, there's still the odd video file that I just can't get to play because it's using the latest version of Quicktime or WMV or something.

I still remember having to install Windows Media Player, Apple Quicktime
*and* RealPlayer just to have a reasonable chance of watching anything
on the net.  And even then, you had an out-of-date version 90% of the time.

As an actual user, I *prefer* there being a single, ubiquitous format that I can view almost anywhere.  The last thing I want to do is return to the hell of a million different, incompatible formats each requiring their own player software.

The only way Flash will die if if at least the following happen:

1. HTML5 is standardised with at least one free video codec that's competitive with VP3 and MP4.  This will probably require Theora and Dirac to get up to speed FAST.

2. HTML5's video and audio elements have to be supported by IE.

3. Someone needs to come up with a way of building SVG animations with sound, video and interactivity that is competitive with Flash and doesn't suck.  I don't hold much hope of the OSS community being capable of this one.

4. There will have to be a massive, coordinated and *sustained* marketing effort to make HTML5 cooler than Flash.  The success of Firefox gives me some hope this could be done.

Simply complaining about Flash will not get any of the above done.

I watch mit and stanford courses on youtube.
I used to download (torrent) them but watching them on youtube just is loads
easier/faster.

> If I could get that in a super fast, light programming editor, I'd use that instead.  But I can't.

Wasn't there an effort somewhere to port eclipse to D ?

"Daniel Keep" <daniel.keep.lists@gmail.com> wrote in message news:gv6ddk$1kon$1@digitalmars.com...
>
> grauzone wrote:
>> Saaa wrote:
>>> "grauzone" <none@example.net> wrote in message news:gv4p44$1jq7$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M
>>>> How about posting a link to something everyone can play? Like an actual video file?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> Isn't youtube a video upload site with an inbuilt player?
>>
>> Yes, but it requires Flash and an unholy amount of AJAX.
>> No one can be bothered with installing Flash and having a JavaScript
>> enabled browser, when something like mplayer would be enough. Especially
>> if the media player works _much_better_.
>
> Obviously the large number of people using such sites are trying to prove you wrong.  :P
>
> To be fair, the alternatives aren't much better.  Embedding a WMV or MOV is even more annoying, and Java's just a tremendous pain in the arse.
>
> It'd be nice if the current efforts to standardise <video> in HTML5 could do away with Flash video et al, but I'm not holding my breath on that.
>
>>> download youtube video
>>
>> Can't see a download button anywhere on YouTube. Obviously, Google forces users to install Flash.
>
> Possessing a burning hatred of Flash isn't going to get everyone else to stop using it.  If that worked, we'd have killed off IE6 years ago.
>
> Either build a better system and get it installed on >90% of the world's PCs or learn to live with it.  :P
>

Ok, so there's a lot retarded lemmings running around believing youtube isn't an absolute abomination to the web. And people like us who ARE capable of knowing better have a responsibility do whatever we can (even if it's nothing more than complain) to NOT help encourage such F%^& stupidity. Bottom line is, Flash (ok, at least most uses of it, not all), and especially flash-embedded video, needs to die. Throwing our hands into the air and exclaiming "Gee, it's too hard to make that happen!" and blindly joining the masses of lemmings has got to be the absolute stupidest most self-defeating and downright irresponsible response to such a situation I've ever seen.

"Enron/MS/Apple/whatever is screwing us over! Let's just shut up and learn to live with it!"

"Saaa" <empty@needmail.com> wrote in message news:gv6qcj$2ckd$1@digitalmars.com...
>
>> If I could get that in a super fast, light programming editor, I'd use that instead.  But I can't.
>
> Wasn't there an effort somewhere to port eclipse to D ?
>

I have no idea, but that does raise an interesting question (maybe one of our resident Eclipse experts can answer it?): If it were ported to D, would that really improve the speed/resource-usage? From various things I've heard, I fear the answer may be "only a little bit" and that it would still need a bunch of extra optimizations (Although despite claims of Java being fast, I would think it still has a big limit in that there's a lot of optimizations that just simply can't be done without a systems language like D).

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Saaa" <empty@needmail.com> wrote in message news:gv6qcj$2ckd$1@digitalmars.com...
>>> If I could get that in a super fast, light programming editor, I'd use
>>> that instead.  But I can't.
>> Wasn't there an effort somewhere to port eclipse to D ?
>>
> 
> I have no idea, but that does raise an interesting question (maybe one of our resident Eclipse experts can answer it?): If it were ported to D, would that really improve the speed/resource-usage? From various things I've heard, I fear the answer may be "only a little bit" and that it would still need a bunch of extra optimizations (Although despite claims of Java being fast, I would think it still has a big limit in that there's a lot of optimizations that just simply can't be done without a systems language like D).

A direct port of Eclipse to D I would guess to be much SLOWER. Eclipse relies *heavily* on inheritance (Java can inline virtual calls; D can't) and allocating many small objects (something D tests badly in, and Java is particularly well-suited for).

There's also a lot of static initialization that would need to be converted to static this() in D. However, in Java, the static stuff is initialized lazily at the first time it's used, while in D, it's all run at startup, even if only 1/5th of it is going to be used.

If the codebase were D-ized, it's possible that native code optimizations make it slightly faster (though the shootout shows Java performing nearly as well as C/C++/D for many tasks).

Daniel Keep wrote:
> The only way Flash will die if if at least the following happen:
> ...

5. Silverlight replaces it (and then we're all doomed).

Ary Borenszweig schrieb:
> Daniel Keep wrote:
>> 
>> grauzone wrote:
>>> BCS wrote:
>>>> Reply to Ary,
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M
>>>>>
>>>> The clunk you just heard is my jaw bouncing on the floor <G> NICE!!!!!
>>> It would be very nice to have such a debugging feature. Too bad it's
>>> hardcoded into a very bug GUI system.
>> 
>> Yes, heaven forbid Ary spends his time adding and improving features
>> when he should be building a new editor from the ground up.
>> 
>> In all seriousness, I hate IDEs because they are big, slow, and waste
>> vast tracts of prime monitor space.  But I'm willing to put up with that
>> for Descent's compile-time view and (hopefully soon) compile-time debugging.
>> 
>> If I could get that in a super fast, light programming editor, I'd use
>> that instead.  But I can't.
>> 
>> Although it is annoying when I'm out and about on my little netbook and
>> can't use Eclipse.  C'est la vie.
> 
> Another problem with Descent is that it's kind of buggy (yes, I know it). But most of the bugs are because of errors in the semantic analysis ported from DMD's front end. So, for example, some template instantiations fail when they shouldn't.

maybe we should think about extending dmd itselfe to give you
and runtime interface to the compile which can be used for
features like that - any ideas?

On Fri, 22 May 2009 20:26:32 +0200, Saaa wrote:

>> If I could get that in a super fast, light programming editor, I'd use that instead.  But I can't.
> 
> Wasn't there an effort somewhere to port eclipse to D ?

Frank has an interest in having Eclipse ported, but nothing has been started that I know of.