On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 09:44 -0700, Lonni J Friedman wrote: > On 10/19/06, Gilboa Davara <gilboad@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > A. It's a binary blob - it's not open source. > > B. It's written poorly - with no multi-platform support in mind. > > (Most likely they mixed longs with ints and have bundles of asm code - > > all of this makes porting to 64bit a lovely nightmare) > > How do you know its written poorly? Have you seen the source? > > BTW, Adobe has been quoted as stating that they plan to release 64bit > native binaries for all operating systems (Linux isn't the only one > lacking them) at some point in the future. You may see my view as rather narrow-minded, but in my view: Writing platform dependent application with no platform/arch/compiler abstraction == poorly written code. (unless you enjoy having MS pull the rug from under your feet every couple of years) Using compiler/arch dependent types (long, int) instead of using arch-free ones (DWORD, __u16); Having OS/GDI calls all over the place instead using a single well-API'ed OS layer - or using in-line assembly instead of having a detachable function based - ASM layer, and you'll end up spending two years on a Linux port and God knows how many more to create a Windows port. I'm not saying that the Flash team are a bunch of code monkeys - far from it. Taking a 'pure' Windows application and porting to Linux/MAC is quite a feat. I -am- saying that Flash (as in the application) was poorly designed with no multi-arch/platform/compiler support in mind and as such - poorly written. (Yep, I'm narrow minded) - Gilboa
