Talk:Comparison between Ajax and Flex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This might be the worst tech article I've ever seen on Wikipedia... 74.95.1.161 17:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Complete BS 2 Besides being biased, the comparison is wrong... 3 Rewrite? Encyclopedic? 4 Narrow Scope, Biased 5 Agreed, lousy comparison - inaccurate information 6 Starting a rewrite 7 First attempt at rewrite

[edit] Complete BS

This is complete BS! There are a whole host of AJAX frameworks out there with a variety of features, and many of them are free. Just off the top of my head, Yahoo and Google both make one, and then there are the DOJO framework, MokiKit, and heck, even the one that comes freely with the .NET framework is pretty good. Whoever wrote this article either owns Adobe stock, or draws a pay check from them. There are some facts littered in this article, but it most DEFINITELY biased. Please change this!! Thanks for everything wikipedia!!! regards, Jason 71.37.9.68 07:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Besides being biased, the comparison is wrong...

I agree with the previous poster that the comparison is biased, but I also think it's wrong to compare AJAX to Flex, as Flex is a single technology while AJAX is a method of creating interactive web pages using asyncronous http requests and JavaScripts. It would be more natural to compare Flex to something like Yahoo UI, jQuery, Ruby on Rails, Google Web Toolkit or other AJAX frameworks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.203.27.186 (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree; besides my comment below about a rewrite, it may even be worhty of deletion. -- Northgrove 13:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite? Encyclopedic?

I have to wonder if these straight comparison tables are even encyclopedic. It's dangerously close to just look like something published by a computer magazine or a reviewer of the two technologies. This page doesn't even have an intro. If preserved, I also think it should be renamed to something like "Comparison between AJAX and Flex", not this "Alien vs Terminator"-style, that further make it look like they're put together in a pit where they get to battle it out. :-)

I added the Rewrite templated for these reasons:

• The article lacks a good introduction to the technologies and an objective summarized overview on how they're different.
• (most major problem to me) I feel the article layout encourages POV content as the two technologies are pit together step by step. I am not surprised to see it having happened. I personally feel this style of writing is more efficient if the comparison is simple to only cover a few lines, where there is no chance to introduce bias and the compared items are purely factual and not subject for debate. For example, which platforms JavaScript has been ported to, the average size of an animal.
• AJAX is a web development technique, not a product, so the comparison is inherently flawed.
• There are many weasel words introduced in the article; "hard", "sometimes", "much faster".
• There are POV issues: "Large Ajax applications with rich user experience = large development effort." -- so large, advanced, Flex applications do not need a large development effort?
• There are assumptions made in the article: "will improve in the future". It is not our job to make assumptions.
• The written tone seems off: "you’re still subject to the pains of cross browser issues" -- is the article trying to explain the differences, or lecture the reader?

-- Northgrove 12:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Narrow Scope, Biased

The value of this article, IMHO is to compare and contrast common approches for creating interactive web pages. I feel that any re-write of this article should contain a more comprehensive matrix (e.g. ActiveX Controls, Flex, Java Applets, JavaScript ...). I also agree with the current article is biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShannonHaworth (talk • contribs) date

Add another that agrees. 192.102.82.253 19:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agreed, lousy comparison - inaccurate information

This article is divisive and contains a lot of misinformation. It spends far too much focus on cross-browser issues (which, yes, exist - but having worked with browsers since a Netscape beta are far less troublesome these days). It neatly picks and chooses examples to persuade the reader.

Not to mention that Flex and AJAX are distinctly different technologies. You can even *gasp* use them together. They often share similar space, sure, but I don't think that justifies this article's existence. Inkless 17:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starting a rewrite

I feel the topic is interesting and relevant for wikipedia, because Flex and Ajax are the most popular RIA technologies, and it's not at all clear how they compare. A good reference article will be valuable. However, the current article needs to be redone completely.

First, I've tried to find the sources of this article using Google, and I've listed them in a references paragraph. It consists of quite a bit of cut-and-paste from other sites, so there might be copyright issues, so we better rewrite from scratch. I've put the references on top of the page for now.

Second, I plan to summarize the information from the different references and rewrite the entire article step-by-step. Any input is welcome. I'd like to remove the table and use paragraphs to discuss the different topics, to be more in line with typical wikipedia articles. Let me know your ideas. Jep 19:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First attempt at rewrite

I've done a complete rewrite, while still covering the topics from the original version. Let me know what you think: does this address the POV, copyright and reference issues? Jep 19:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If I understand the Wikipedia rules correctly, I can remove the POV, ad and rewrite templates if I believe they're not needed anymore, so that's what I've done. Let me know if you believe this is not correct. Jep 19:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)