It would really be nice if it was Flash/Java/AIR instead of Silverlight where it won't run on my phone or tablet or a Linux box. It's a web app already, you can emulate most of the .Net libraries with Java classes and the Adobe stuff is easier to write and not as buggy. I'd certainly keep my subscription active all the time if I didn't have to be at home to use it.
Flash/Java/AIR won't run on most phones or tablets either; they are not true cross-platform solutions. Silverlight is the application development platform for Windows phones, and there are persistent rumors of Microsoft developing Silverlight for iOS in 2011. As far as I know, AIR support right now is limited to Android, although again there are persistent rumors of AIR for Windows phones in 2011. Given that the old CB and AT code depended on .NET libraries, Silverlight was probably (and probably remains) the path of least resistance for converting to web-based instead of downloadable tools.
It would really be nice if it was Flash/Java/AIR instead of Silverlight where it won't run on my phone or tablet or a Linux box. It's a web app already, you can emulate most of the .Net libraries with Java classes and the Adobe stuff is easier to write and not as buggy. I'd certainly keep my subscription active all the time if I didn't have to be at home to use it.
Flash/Java/AIR won't run on most phones or tablets either; they are not true cross-platform solutions. Silverlight is the application development platform for Windows phones, and there are persistent rumors of Microsoft developing Silverlight for iOS in 2011. As far as I know, AIR support right now is limited to Android, although again there are persistent rumors of AIR for Windows phones in 2011. Given that the old CB and AT code depended on .NET libraries, Silverlight was probably (and probably remains) the path of least resistance for converting to web-based instead of downloadable tools.
Actually you just throw the source code into a converter and it can be converted to pretty much any language (barring a few weeks to go over inconsistencies). They need to go with either Java or Flash as those are the two most widely used media APIs. The other option is HTML, Java-script, PHP, and SQL. with server side scripting it would be simple to make DDI for any platform as long as it has a browser that can read HTML. All of the work would be done before it got sent to the device as a web-page. Alas, they refuse to see reason and jumped on the Silverlight bandwagon...
It would really be nice if it was Flash/Java/AIR instead of Silverlight where it won't run on my phone or tablet or a Linux box. It's a web app already, you can emulate most of the .Net libraries with Java classes and the Adobe stuff is easier to write and not as buggy. I'd certainly keep my subscription active all the time if I didn't have to be at home to use it.
Flash/Java/AIR won't run on most phones or tablets either; they are not true cross-platform solutions. Silverlight is the application development platform for Windows phones, and there are persistent rumors of Microsoft developing Silverlight for iOS in 2011. As far as I know, AIR support right now is limited to Android, although again there are persistent rumors of AIR for Windows phones in 2011. Given that the old CB and AT code depended on .NET libraries, Silverlight was probably (and probably remains) the path of least resistance for converting to web-based instead of downloadable tools.
Actually you just throw the source code into a converter and it can be converted to pretty much any language (barring a few weeks to go over inconsistencies). They need to go with either Java or Flash as those are the two most widely used media APIs. The other option is HTML, Java-script, PHP, and SQL. with server side scripting it would be simple to make DDI for any platform as long as it has a browser that can read HTML. All of the work would be done before it got sent to the device as a web-page. Alas, they refuse to see reason and jumped on the Silverlight bandwagon...
Except for the fact that Java was the first thing they tried when CB was in the development process, and it was a disaster.
You know what they say when you assume.
It would really be nice if it was Flash/Java/AIR instead of Silverlight where it won't run on my phone or tablet or a Linux box. It's a web app already, you can emulate most of the .Net libraries with Java classes and the Adobe stuff is easier to write and not as buggy. I'd certainly keep my subscription active all the time if I didn't have to be at home to use it.
Flash/Java/AIR won't run on most phones or tablets either; they are not true cross-platform solutions. Silverlight is the application development platform for Windows phones, and there are persistent rumors of Microsoft developing Silverlight for iOS in 2011. As far as I know, AIR support right now is limited to Android, although again there are persistent rumors of AIR for Windows phones in 2011. Given that the old CB and AT code depended on .NET libraries, Silverlight was probably (and probably remains) the path of least resistance for converting to web-based instead of downloadable tools.
Actually you just throw the source code into a converter and it can be converted to pretty much any language (barring a few weeks to go over inconsistencies). They need to go with either Java or Flash as those are the two most widely used media APIs. The other option is HTML, Java-script, PHP, and SQL. with server side scripting it would be simple to make DDI for any platform as long as it has a browser that can read HTML. All of the work would be done before it got sent to the device as a web-page. Alas, they refuse to see reason and jumped on the Silverlight bandwagon...
Except for the fact that Java was the first thing they tried when CB was in the development process, and it was a disaster.
You know what they say when you assume.
You got some links or proof to back up your outlandish accusations? If they tried java and it failed, it was because of the development team and NOT because of java. What I remember was the first CB they put out was .NET probably C++ or Visual Basic. It was windows only as I remember...
Right now Wizards is investing in a platform that may do well or may disapear. It certainly does not work on my Droid, my Linux desktop or my iPad. But hey, I am just one customer, everyone runs Windows right? At least in the US. Don't worry about people outside the US, they don't play D&D anyways.
I undestand that if you already know .net that it's easy to implement silverlight but frankly that's a horrid reason to pick a platform, it's like trying to do engineering in footpounds and miles per second instead of using metic. Yeah it's a pain in the ass to get used to the new system but it pays back every single time you use it.
Java was implemented as a system for managing cable boxes, I'm pretty sure that any device it does not run on properly is an intentional lockout by who ever controls the manufacturing of the device not a shortcoming in the language itself. I'm pretty familiar with this having gone from C to C++ to Java to Python to Ruby. It's not nearly as difficult as it seems and it generally ends up with MUCH easier to support code.
I'm just going off of a face-to-face conversation I had with one of the original team that put oCB together. I had asked why they made CB into an .exe instead of doing it in Java, and he told me that Java was actually their original plan, but when they got started on it, Java was very, very sluggish and they wouldn't even come close to getting the project done within the (short) timeframe that their WotC bosses were allowing. So they made oCB into an .exe instead, and didn't make a .dmg equivalent because WotC wasn't didn't feel it was worth investment to pay more when the majority of their users use windows /shrug.
I don't know for sure why they made what decisions concerning the new CB and choosing silverlight, I was just pointing out that they did attempt java at one point.
I think it is a bit foolhardy to make all these assumptions about why the design decisions were made, and insulting the developers, when you honestly have no idea what is going on in the company.
"Outlandish accusations"? Really?
I'm just going off of a face-to-face conversation I had with one of the original team that put oCB together. I had asked why they made CB into an .exe instead of doing it in Java, and he told me that Java was actually their original plan, but when they got started on it, Java was very, very sluggish and they wouldn't even come close to getting the project done within the (short) timeframe that their WotC bosses were allowing. So they made oCB into an .exe instead, and didn't make a .dmg equivalent because WotC wasn't didn't feel it was worth investment to pay more when the majority of their users use windows /shrug.
I don't know for sure why they made what decisions concerning the new CB and choosing silverlight, I was just pointing out that they did attempt java at one point.
I think it is a bit foolhardy to make all these assumptions about why the design decisions were made, and insulting the developers, when you honestly have no idea what is going on in the company.
Ah well, that whole team was fired, so we know how that went.
Seriously, Java would have been the perfect platform for the OCB. HTML + PHP + SQL + JAVASCRIPT + CSS would have been the absolute best. .NET however was probably the fastest way they could get it out the door. So then the failing actually falls on the managers for giving them such a shortsighted and ill thought out timeframe to work with. You would think the second time around they would learn something...