Now look at three of Adobe’s latest products: Flash Catalyst, Edge and Muse. There’s one common thing to all these programs, build things without coding. This all leads me to believe one thing, Adobe gets how to build programs for designers but has no idea how to build anything for the serious developer. I’m a firm believer that Flash Catalyst was a direct response to designers saying they liked Flash better back when it was more of an animation tool that allowed a bit of coding. And you know what, I’m glad they made it, I don’t know if anyone actually uses it, but it hasn’t flooded the web with Flash sites that were any worse than people were putting out there before. Edge has potential, but I think it’s going to have to have it’s animations be canvas or SVG based to really catch on. And Muse to me is just a bad idea. The code it creates is awful and really, it’s just Dreamweaver with the code view removed.

I wasn’t the least but surprised by the web development community’s reaction to Muse. I pride myself in my ability to take a design and recreate it using HTML and CSS as close as a browser will let me. I spend a lot of time communicating with the designers I work with, I let them know what’s realistic and they let me know when they think I’m just being lazy. Muse seems to me to be evidence that Adobe feels developers are neck bearded nerds that don’t care how long you spent getting that gradient just right, they’re going to ruin your design because of things like functionality. So, Adobe is giving the designer the power to make their design look exactly like they want, no more arguing with those nerds that just don’t get it. But when Adobe’s example site has 1500 lines of HTML and someone recreates it using only 105 lines when they hand code it, it shows you how much Adobe missed the mark.

There was and maybe still is a way that Adobe could have avoided the developer backlash. Dreamweaver is actually a really decent code editor, it’s just expensive and most developers don’t want to be bothered with all the extra stuff it comes with. Adobe should come out with a cheap, or even free, version of Dreamweaver that’s just a code editor. Imagine if they’d released that at the same time as Muse? Look, Microsoft has two free coding environments that are actually really good and that I actually recommend to people, Visual Web Developer and WebMatrix and both are free.

But then again, has Adobe ever made a great coding environment? Flash Builder doesn’t seem to have the greatest reputation and Dreamweaver heyday was when it was built by Macromedia. I don’t think there’s been any major changes to Dreamweaver since Adobe bought it. And really, at $399, I doubt anyone that uses Dreamweaver actually bought it on it’s own, most people probably got it because they bought one of the Creative Suites. And who’s going to pay that much for something when you can get the same thing for free or for $29.

I think Adobe is fighting to stay relevant to the web design community but they’re doing it with the risk of alienating the web development community. I like Adobe and I like a lot of their products (any time I get to use After Effect is a good day), I think they are having trouble finding their place in the evolving world of the web.

Regardless of your opinion on Java, that was 4 years ago and I think Java is still kicking around. In fact, every once in a while I see a blog post about how Java doesn’t suck that bad and there is still a lot of work out there for Java developers. Of course, the response is usually, Java should die and people the work with it should switch. In fact, the same thing is going on with Flash. HTML5 has been killing Flash for a while now, yet I still see comments from Flash developers saying they’re as busy as they’ve ever been.

But this doesn’t just apply to languages that the cool kids don’t like. I’ve even seen a blog post or two stating that Ruby was done because it wasn’t the cool language anymore because the amount of Ruby devs had plateaued or even decreased a little. I can’t find the post, but from what I remember, the author stated Ruby was dying because people had realized Python was better and had moved on. Of course, the response from commenters was less than positive.

And if you’ve spend more than a couple of months as a web developer, you’ve worked with PHP, which is either the greatest thing ever or the worse invention in the history of humankind. I think PHP is a long way from dying but that still doesn’t stop Ruby and Python devs out there saying it’s on a slow decline. Personally, I think PHP is safe for years to come because you can pretty much make anything you need but copy and pasting code that’s already out there.

It’s amazing how many people are as opinionated as web developers. They’ll argue everything from what operating system you should use to what code editor to what language. And after a while you’ll realize that a lot of the time the languages people are declaring dead or dying are the ones they don’t like. I learned a long time ago, it doesn’t matter how you made it, or what you used to make it, if it’s cool and works, then that’s all that matters. In the end, if it’s a project you’re doing on your own to lean or to experiment, then use whatever language you want. But if it’s for a client, make sure you use the best tech for the job. As long as developers are making good apps and sites, I doubt any of the programming languages will ever really die. Look at JavaScript, I’m pretty sure 6 years ago, people were just waiting for it to go away.

Over the last few weeks, I’ve been really optimizing the vertical space shooter game that I built for the tutorial I did. One thing I realized as I was working on it, was that I should be using only as many loops as I need to run the code. Right around the time I was figuring this out, I watch a video of a presentation done by Mozilla Evangelist Rob Hawkes where he said the exact same thing, that you need to be careful about how many loops you have running in your game.

Whats the big deal about having too many loops? Well, think about it this way. If you have five loops in your game and you’re running it at something like 30 frames a second, you need to run all five loops thirty times each second. Think about a situation where you have a for loop inside another for loop. This is a pretty common situation and, let’s say the outer loop runs six times and the inner loop runs 9 times, now you’re going to run that interior for loop 1620 times a second. If it’s doing any kind of hard work, that’s going to slow things down.

One of the things we as developers need to remember is that, if you’re like me, you’ve got a quad core processor and you’re probably using a browser like Mozilla’s Aurora or Google Dev version, so you’re code is going to be a lot faster. I bet most of the people out there aren’t going to be running a crazy fast browser on a crazy fast machine. So, and I’m sure you’ve heard this before, but optimizing your code is always a good idea, which is surprising how many developers out there don’t do it.

The moral of the story is this: use as few loops are you need so your code runs faster. I’m sure for experienced programmers this seems like common sense, but I think it’s a good thing to bring up for beginners.

The other reason could be imagine if a company that you really liked and used their products, like Apple, and all of a sudden they declared they didn’t like the technology you used to make your living. Then all of a sudden, people in the web community and outside of it, were saying that technology was dead. Imagine if you’re a FedEx delivery person and the post office declares that they have a technology that makes your job no longer needed, not only that, but other people are actively celebrating the end of FedEx. That would kinda suck. Although, really, any person that actually knows anything about Flash, HTML5 and web development knows that Flash isn’t done, it’s just moving on to other things.

I think there’s another reason for the animosity towards Flash. The earlier versions of ActionScript were easier to use and now it’s turned into a fullblown programming language. It went from a scripting language used to make simple effects and animations to a full development platform and some of the early users felt left behind. And now HTML5 and JavaScript is replacing Flash for those needs.

But it has to be funny for some Flash developers to see that HTML5 and JS are being used to create those types of things that Flash was ripped on for for so long, things like animated menus and intros. I’ve already said that I think HTML5 will get the same complaints that Flash got and it already is. Just like some sites are a blank page if you don’t have the Flash player installed, there’s more and more sites out there that don’t have even basic functionality if you have JavaScript turned off.

I’m not saying ones better than the other. I like working with Flash but it doesn’t come up much in my day job, so I’ve been focusing more on JavaScript, HTML5 and CSS3. I just think I understand why some Flash developers can get so worked up over something as simple as Keith Peters posting on his blog about JavaScript.

But I kept looking into JavaScript and got really excited about jQuery. jQuery is the perfect gateway drug to JS, I think. It allows you to get projects up and running quickly, and for me at least, it made me want to learn more straight JavaScript. Now I find myself trying to figure out a way to include some JavaScript effect into every site I work on.

I don’t think that JavaScript itself won me over, it’s the fact that the modern version of all the major browsers allow you to build things that would be nearly impossible without a plug-in a few years ago. But now, for a lot of effects like an animated drop down navigation, you just need to link to a JavaScript file and, bang, you’ve got the effect you’re after.

Plus, I think with JavaScript and ActionScript both being based on ECMAscript, learning one after being familiar with the other makes it really a situation of learning the differences between the languages than anything else. So switching my focus has been pretty easy for me but it has been without some frustration. Not strong typing variables took a bit of getting used to.

I still can’t believe that I get excited about JavaScript heavy projects but I think that the leaning of the web to move from plug-ins to browsers for dynamic website experiences has been a good thing. Plus, it’s taught me that as a web developer, you shouldn’t limit yourself to one or two technologies. Honestly, for the longest time, I was hoping that Flash would take over for HTML because of the crazy dynamic things you could build with it. But now, thanks to the innovations by Chrome and Firefox, it can be done with HTML/CSS/JS, which means you can build a great website experience with a text editor as simple as Notepad. Which is pretty cool when you think about it.

This isn’t a Flash vs HTML5 post, this is a “Remember, open web means everyone can see inside the machine” post. Most of Mr. Doob’s stuff is crazy complex and if you can figure out how it works, it’s going to take a while. But that’s the point, no matter who you are, you can take a look inside and see what’s going on. And even if you don’t understand it or how it works, most of this stuff can be copy and pasted and used by anyone. When I went to Chris McKenzie’s site, I’ll admit, I’d love to know how he made it but it would require some research that I don’t have the time or patience for right now. Yes, I know I could use a decompiler for Flash, but it’s kind of a pain, plus you have to pay for the good ones, which I don’t want to do.

I’m not in anyway saying developers shouldn’t be building their stuff with HTML5 and JS. I’m saying that if it’s something that you want to use to attract clients, something only you know how to build, if you build it in HTML5, it’s going to be pretty hard to stop other people from figuring out how it works. At the same time, I’ve built things and explained out to make things here on my blog because I want the web to be a better place and showing people a better way to make CSS3 buttons isn’t going to cost me anything and might make some other sites look better.

This is a wonderful time to be a web developer, with a great community sharing some amazing things and the web technologies allowing us to push what we can do. But I’ve read of situations where Flash/Flex developers have complained about other decompiling their work and using it without permission and I would hate to see something like that start to happen with the open web.

But there’s a day coming when the ads will be made with the HTML5 canvas tag or with CSS3 animations. And that’s going to be a whole different ballgame when it comes to trying to block them. Think about it, in a year or two, you’ll be able to make a fully animated ad with sound using just HTML and CSS. It’s going to be mighty complicated to figure out what’s an ad and what’s part of the website’s actual content. It’s not like someone can just set up a rule saying all ads must have a class of ad or anything.

I’m not saying, “Hey, Flash is better because you can block it”, I’m just saying, this is the future of the web. As much as people hate it, a lot of websites run on ad money and not everyone is happy with just a Google text ad. And I’m sure someone will come up with a way to block them and then someone else will come up with a way around that.

That’s the future. The web isn’t free as much as a lot of us think it or wish it. And think about how much more you could charge for your site’s unblockable ads.

After a couple of weeks of the arguing between the HTML5 vs Flash sides, I came to realize there was was more than one group hoping for Flash’s death, one side was the people who hated how Flash video ran on their Mac and that’s all they cared about, not that HTML5 video has proved to run that much better so far. Another was the people that didn’t like that Flash was proprietary and preferred HTML5 simply because it was open source. And a third group was the Apple super fans that just seemed to parrot whatever Apple was saying about Flash, I saw numerous instances of people who’d never even built a website talking about why Flash was “bad”.

I’ll admit, I saw where the tide of the web was turning and I was excited for some of the things that we’d be able to do with the new HTML5 tags like canvas and video. I’ve spent a lot of time lately working with JavaScript which has turned out to not be as horrible as I’d thought it would be. But as I spent more time with it, especially with the canvas tag, and as I looked at more and more HTML5 demos, I began to see the the things that were being created and the people were get excited for, where the same stuff people got excited about being made in Flash seven or eight years ago.

Today, Adobe announced Adobe Edge prototype tool, which is a tool you can use to build HTML5 animations using CSS3 and jQuery. While this is really cool and is something that I’ve said the web development community needs to realistically be able to use CSS3 animations. But at the same time, they announced the Molehill 3D API for Flash which allows a developer to make a true 3D game in Flash. I have to say that I was pretty impressed by the demo Adobe has of a racing game.

And I think these two demos are perfect examples of what the future holds for both technologies. We will be able to stop using Flash for the flashier elements that we want to add to a website and use Flash for more specific online experiences and for games that look like they could be PS2 level, which isn’t that bad.

I think the situation here is that HTML5 was the new buzzword, people who didn’t really understand started hyping it and it all got a little out of control, especially with the W3C saying that HTML5 isn’t ready yet and developers should hold off. Some of the things that will make HTML5 great in the near future still have some bugs to work out, like the video tag which lets the visitor download the video, something Flash video doesn’t and would definitely be a turn off to TV networks who have their shows on the web. And, one of the big complaints against Flash video was how much it worked a computer’s processor when viewed full screen, but I can’t really see HTML5 full screen video being that much better.

Clients are starting to see a lot of JavaScript functionality on other sites and are expecting every web designer and front-end developer to be able to recreate that for them. It’s going to get harder and harder to get by with just HTML and CSS knowledge. Even Flash or Silverlight might not cut it as some of the Flash bashing has begun to reach clients ears. I’m a guy that enjoys working with Flash and I’ve talked clients out of using Flash for something that can just as easily be made with a jQuery plug-in.

And that’s the beauty of JavaScript becoming part of the basic building blocks of a website, almost anything you need has been already built and 99% of the time it’s there for you to use. Even if you don’t understand how to program in JavaScript, a bit of effort will enable you to use jQuery plug-ins and a little bit more will help you learn to write your own. And if you’re anything like me, all the jQuery work will lead you into writing things with pure JavaScript.

Really, this is all just falling under the “HTML5” branding that companies like Apple are throwing around. If you’ve ever checked out their HTML5 showcase, there’s only two actual HTML5 demos, the rest are all CSS and JavaScript. But the trend now is, HTML for structure, CSS for style and positioning, and JavaScript for functionality. You won’t need JavaScript for every site but it will make life a lot easier.

I will say there are times when I see Flash being used and it frustrates me. I don’t see any need now to use Flash for only the navigation on an otherwise HTML site. I’ve yet to see an effect special enough to justify it. Most, if not all, of the Flash effects I’ve seen on website navigations I’ve seen could either be created with JavaScript or wasn’t worth the extra memory. It goes without saying that Flash intros are long dead and so are Flash banners used to in the header of a website. I’ve built sites with these and usually they just feature something movie or a sheen moving across quickly and they end up being more annoying then adding anything to the design. Also, if you’re Flash site looks like an HTML site, then you really wasted you time building it in Flash.

Flash still has it’s strengths though. I really think that if you want to create and experience, you still need to use Flash. Firefox 4 shows some of the potential of what we’ll be able to do eventually with just CSS but for now, Flash is still the way to go. Great examples of sites like this are usually made by companies who want a site to showcase a product. Car companies do this a lot with Flash sites that mix in a lot of different media, like video and other interactive elements.

Personally, I think video is going to be the domain of Flash for the next couple of years, for two reasons. 1) Until IE9 becomes the main version of IE on the market a majority of the browsers out there don’t recognize the video tag and 2) Until one of the codecs become dominant, Flash will be the easiest way to get your video online. Plus, until the end of IE6, you’ll always need to have Flash as at least a back up if IE6 users are part of your target audience.

Flash is a long way from dead but I think it’s feeling the backlash of developers overusing it for the past few years. I’m still a big fan of Flash and I really believe that sometimes Flash is still your best option to build interactive features on a website. If you’re someone like me, who is still learning JavaScript, in order to get things built fast and to know it will function how you want, Flash is right there. And a big point I think that a lot of people miss is the average Internet surfer doesn’t care what you built it in as long as it works.