Gilboa Davara wrote:
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
Which was the heart of my question, which probably should have been
stated as:
Is the Linux code base in a state such that the developer could copy the
source to a 64bit platform and do a make?
If not, why (obviously many technical reasons that all point to
unwillingness by either manage or programming staff to make it so)?
