novalis

Are you on Linux ? That is the only plat that I see taking higher cpu usage while playing viedo in flash. Both windows and osx now play flash with little cpu usage.

Simpler/faster is relative and interpretative. I loved playing with machine code on the Commodore Amiga until I found out about assembler. Lacking in interpretation should not set the code reading skill entry level to some fashionable default. That is lazy and arbitrary, and just because someone likes the cozy space something like that creates, doesn't mean there isn't more out there. 90 is a nop. You build from that just as you would when reading about type reference. It is possible and rewarding. The other way is to abstract everything to the point you don't really know what you are doing while being fluent but oblivious to how confined you are.

That only transfers the decision to run it, doesn't make it any more safe. You can override anything, that doesn't "clean" it or make beneficial by default.

I found the article very skippable because it really shrinks down to what you stated in those two lines, a prejudice cruzade against a plat. Zdnet at its "best".

Article starts with: "How well does Khan Academy teach? By Valerie Strauss", then "By Christopher Danielson and Michael Paul Goldenberg" on top of their contribution. At the end of the article there is a : "By Valerie Strauss". So attribution is displayed twice before text blocks and once after text blocks, if you don't see the failure in that, I am so sorry. I don't know how pedantic it is to confuse voices when they are attributed in two different ways when it is clear that the second way is the most common, but I will leave it to you to quantify it, not that I care for it. But do keep up the winding, you will be on to something, sometime soon.

Second: "Comparing decimals. Decimal fractions (decimals for short — the numbers to the right of the decimal point) are a notoriously challenging topic in the elementary math curriculum."

For the last time, decimals are NOT the numbers to the right of the decimal point like stated. "decimals" is being used for a subpar abbreviation of decimal fractions AND the left side numbers to the decimal point are a part of it, unlike what said authors state. Someone with pedagogical concerns should be awake when stating stuff like this and if you don't see the mess that is, that is your own problem. I have stated this already.

"We" may well be used instead of "I" and at the end it reads "By Valerie Strauss". The attribution is placed in a random way all through the article and that threw me.

The abbreviation is terrible because in the article it is used in reference to "the numbers to the right of the decimal point"; "decimals for short".

I am under the impression the author of the article is Valerie Strauss and she is presenting a small piece critique by Christopher Danielson and Michael Paul Goldenberg at the top of her article. If not, there is a problem with the placement of her name at the end of it.

As for the abbreviation presented, it is just terrible and is used in article while accusing others of lack of Pedagogical Content Knowledge.

"Comparing decimals. Decimal fractions (decimals for short — the numbers to the right of the decimal point) are a notoriously challenging topic in the elementary math curriculum."

Just to point out this is the most ass backwards way to talk about decimal fractions I have ever witnessed, but nothing would stop said Valerie Strauss on pedagogical insufficiency spotting... "decimals for short — the numbers to the right of the decimal point" ?!? Whisky Tango Foxtrot

Edit: downvoted is it because you would also believe decimal fractions are decimals and those are the numbers to the right of the decimal point per article explanation... because being a silent ignorant with a karma finger really fits you.

You can build a streaming Flash app without having to pay a cent to Adobe, the Haxe compiler or the Flex SDK are some of the solutions available. So I don't really understand the "(and purchase)Adobe Flash" part.

I am going to let the "never" slide because you switched on it again. So we are down to your point being that there aren't any good designers around ? And somehow "great design" occludes knowledge.

Does this configure or bring any hope for users, it would be the designers that lock users out of the know-how... you see how that may not even be possible, because of innate properties like human curiosity, the very target of said "great design".

"users wouldn't need to know what a USB port is, if the design was self-evident."

"I don't think reasoning like "must" (or "never") pushes innovation and great design"

So "never" getting to know what a USB port is for, "must" be the result of great design ? It "must" be, but that would be bad... by you own stunted definitions. But do keep moving the goal posts around.

In the end you just produce a lot of forced substitutive declarations, like the concepts of innovation and great design that you use. You seem to void them in the process.

They will always be "better" solely because they are used by you, no matter the paradox and bs level needed to try to justify something that isn't even real.

Patent troll company setup for nothing more than litigation, just one of the many problems with that.

That is just one of the problems right there, patent holder isn't necessarily the Inventor. It just gets worse from that point.

I started reading the article expecting to find some sort of description for a new file system and couple of paragraphs in I discovered that it reads like the how to frame yourself as a opinionated clueless twit manual of the year, I am going with link bait. Priceless link bait.

Thanks for pointing that out Don.

"It’d be a shitty, reduced, pale imitation of what Sparrow actually was, because the developers would have had to take so much time off to attend the funerals of their families who had died from starvation."

I mean, throwing hypothetical come backs was bad enough but mixing uncalled for low blows to GPL really tops it off for me. This clueless person believes GPL is "shitty" by definition... what a lovely special snow flake intelect we got here, moving on. Make sure to miss the contribute button on his about page, he probably put it on there for sarcastic stance.

Your commentary is factious. No matter how you enunciate ponctuation to try and establish reason. That simply makes it look desperately void. And stop asking other users to downvote people you don't agree with, that is just silly.

Cross plat native look and feel works through waxe: http://lib.haxe.org/p/waxe

The new java target and already available JNI usage targets Android.

There is also http://lib.haxe.org/p/hxffi and a established way to call iOs framework code with hxcpp, which is through the CFFI . You should probably have a read (mostly for Cauê Waneck's posts): https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/haxelang/9_FHI5cDue0

User is probably referencing concepts wich are not "advanced" per si, they are simply recent implementations of type concepts, we should keep in mind that these tend to make for not so efficient languages and Haxe is pointed at the other side of that spectrum. User seems to be some sort of Java api aficionado so I wouldn't put much thought to what "advanced features" is a reference to, coming from that background.

User should read up on Haxe and may well leave attribution of novelty to correct adjectivation, reads less pedantic in many ways.

If you are already on NME 3.3.3 (latest release), no. It comes with Haxe 2.09. But I am guessing it will not be long before another NME release and it will probably come with Haxe 2.10. Don't know if something would brake if you updated to 2.10 per Haxe installer but am not going to find out. Joshua is probably working at it as we type.

In this day and age I really don't see user serviceability for tired argument, it is a fact that lack of it is prejudicial and that is important to people both on and off HN. If it isn't there is something wrong.

I also don't understand how alienating the implications of how apple manages to get to this poor state of pissing on everyone and just going with shallow statements like this, erodes to: "The only group this really isn't good for is the third-party repair companies.". That is really past the point of this whitewash of a public relations exercise and a further non important apologetic unrelated point by itself.

You responded to a poster that takes the spin out of the statement and all you have is; you don't care it isn't done properly. You don't mind glued batts, say it. Let us not further this pathetic marketing spinfest. That, is very tiring and at this point really see through when it comes to speaking about apple like if any negative view on this brand is to be squashed by people that never even seen a spinning beachball while waiting for their computer to catch up... please.

I'm not sure having someone invested in determining 'cool' is valid in any way or if it even has any meaning or should be given any importance.

But seems you attribute a value to that, so subjectivly that will work for you and it will provide a self rewarding feeling of belonging. Look at it in a broader way and we are back to square one, each person gets to pick what the person wants and likes, no matter how influenceable one is. It's just that. Lets not group this judge, Jobs and the Fonz for reinforcement conditioning.

By your own provided links, and some third party information on the subject it should be considered that;

The second hand market for such a highly valued brand is a factor that improves real product life cycle. Also, access to said premium priced devices and user brand entanglement tend to slant device usage past its prime.

Pc's (mostly corporate windows machines) tend to be cycled at higher rates, and that has to do with finantial arrangements linked to fiscal incentives. This data will slant any analisys that doesn't account for this specific motivation.

I was just showing how the premise presented by the poster didn't hold up if only one single model per poster referenced brand showed positive.

So, machines that can be serviced and upgraded without the same restrictions, in comparison, will have expanded usage life cycle. This is parallel to your provided information but doesn't become mute by its introduction, it does however make good thinking points on the amount of waste we currently produce...

"I don’t think a reasonable evidence-backed case can be made for your implication that Mac laptops are designed to be obsolete more quickly than, e.g., HP, Dell, or Toshiba laptops."

Just more obsolete than all the laptops that can be serviced and upgraded without the same restrictions. I wouldn't go lumping all of the models from all of those makers and settling for a blanket statement like that because that reads false just by picking one model that passes the conditionals, just one per any given maker.

In the end it is a choice and some will try to sugar coat that choice with whatever makes them feel better about it.

But if you have to imagine a given brand tops the lot because you "don't think a reasonable evidence-backed case can be made", when it clearly can, that speaks lots about brand engadgement from your part as a customer and not much else to the merit of that brand, and stand for the ethics behind it.

I actually am using node.js through the Noxe lib in Haxe and I don't see it like a toy at all. It works great to push initial files to mobile clients and setup clients in a fast way. Does a great job at it and I have seen much more complicated things being done with it. Having things shuffled once in a while on the API is to be expected when at such young age, everything is new and shiny and sometimes it doesn't live through a revision. Happens.

I don't like the snark about proper languages on the article, it is the sort of troll bait that encourages memes like; node is for web dev js noobs, flash is for clueless devs, etc. Think a serious dev should show respect for whatever a good implementation is achieved in and not let own preference enforce bias, that just makes people look like fools.

If only they were all a bit more like you, so productive with your dead on zing commentary. And by "on" I meant "beat". We can only dream.

Adobe is walking away from the mobile player but still has Air out in the wild wich produces a lot of good chart topping titles on the Android and iOS app stores.

In my opinion, it is better to pick up Haxe if someone is coming from AS3. You can use javascript for the HTML5 compile target, you get extended Mr. Doob three.js support provided by the author himself, node.js through the Noxe Lib extends, and much more. And that is just for the HTML5 target.

It even target compiles to Android and iOS through the Haxe NME framework.

They are adding Java support to the thing and it has been doing c++ and php for some years. There are no silly ";" fights and honestly it is good to be able to use the same code source to run on multiple plats.

Though Dart may well pick up and Easel is already becoming a thing.

"finally the demo throws 18 errors ... fail."

I just runned it on FireFox and Chrome, and it didn't have a single error, you running the demo on what browser ? Did you even run the demo ?

This is a good start for anyone wanting to learn what Dartium is: http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/02/google-has-released-...

Stay happy.

Just to add; and through the Haxe NME framework it compiles to Android and iOS targets.

You talked about: "And if Google/Motorola are so cooperative then why are the FTC/EU investigating them for anti-competitive behaviour ?"

But now the goal post moved to patent abuse investigations, keep in mind that monopoly investigations and patent law can be engaged by diff state institutions, depending on the most effective engagement method, so you may have patent law dispute in the courts in any country and monopoly investigations conducted by an European entity. So while at any given moment, not having one corporation under investigation or defendent status does not push the innocent/guilty pendulum anywhere when acessing any given case. Or is it an indication of antagonistical reversable jurisprudence. The case at hand comes to mind.

Also, any multinational company is under the scrutiny of any government or substitutive supra governamental entity with attributed powers to do so and that is the way it will stay. There is nothing ridiculous about it. It is a needed lawful check for international law and the required balance for the implementation and usage of the Uniform Commercial Code.