Director vs Flash, JavaScript vs Lingo
Paul Neave
whatsoever. I like to think I'm quite a capable programmer, so
learning a new language such as Lingo wouldn't pose much of a threat
to me. But since Macromedia have recently launched MX 2004 with
support for JavaScript/ECMAScript, Lingo seems to be a dying language.
The reason I've never decided to move over to Director before is
because other developers have told me that it is "a bitch to use".
Director has had many bolt-ons added to it; its 3D capabilities have
surely lengthened its lifespan, but the core programming language is
ugly and archaic.
Flash has many frustrating limitations, and Director seems to be the
big brother you call upon when Flash lets you down.
As a newbie to Director, can I learn the new JavaScript language
with confidence and know Flash won't eventually supersede Director?
Flash is growing more powerful with each new release, but it is being
held back by Macromedia's mentality to keep it a lightweight plug-in
for low-end devices.
Director is an ageing relic, not designed for modern times, habitually
kept alive by frustratingly insufficient new features.
This cannot last forever. Will Director be around in five years time?
Will Flash eventually take Director's throne, or will it be bullied
into submission?
I'm sure I'm not the only developer who feels this way.
Somebody, please show me the light!
Paul.
John Doe
Macromedia just anouced Director MX 2004... so It will be around
for a while... but as you said... will it be in future... I personally
think that it wont be... Flash is reaching the gap slowly but surely.
Sorry Director Fans :)
Ian
I use both Flash and Director. They are very definitely horses for different
courses with some interesting areas of overlap. For simple web delivery
stuff I use Flash. For complex web work and for CD-ROM projects, I use
Director. Actually, I get the best of both worlds as I can take things that
are very easy to put together in Flash and then embed them in Director.
Director can talk to such Flash sprites so I can still access whatever
interactivity there might be within the Flash. In particular, I find
managing large collections of assets much easier in Director. I also find
Director much easier to program.
So, is Lingo a dying language? No. It is one of many HyperTalk derivatives
and has a great deal of mileage left. ActionScript / JavaScript are
influenced by the BCPL / C / C++ family of languages, but (and I want to
stress this) should not be regarded as somehow impoverished mini-C. What
they inherit from C is an economy of style and a similar core syntax.
Like all program languages Lingo uses exactly the same three basic
constructs as ActionScript / JavaScript: sequential, conditional and loop.
The underlying syntax is broadly the same, but of course, the program
language symbols change. AS / JS use explicit 'begin' and 'end' statement
symbols (i.e. '{' and '}', respectively), Lingo does not, it merely requires
an explicit 'end' statement. AS / JS use a switch instead of a case
statement, but the difference would not trouble an averagely competent
programmer.
One really could write a book on the differences between these two
variations at the modest end of the OOPL paradigm (both have some OOPL
features, neither are true OOPL).
One of the things that people will say they really like about Lingo is that
the language is very rich in pre-defined functions to handle all manner of
tasks from controlling other media, through 3-D geometry and asset
management. This is a bit of a red-herring since these are not really part
of the language but a library of routines that can be called directly rather
than you having to write them from the ground up. All theses calls are
available from the JS in MX. The Lingo manuals may look daunting, but the
key stuff fits onto just 20-30 pages.
You almost certainly have some experience of at least tinkering with JS in
web page <script...> tags. Note that this is not a full implementation of
JS. If you don't have access to MX as yet, but you do have access to Acrobat
Professional, you can get a good look at what full-featured JS looks like.
If you are already a good programmer in any one language, you will be able
to be a good programmer in any other. Over the years, I've managed to amass
experience of more than 30 different program languages. My favourite?
Modula-2. It was to C what BetaMax was to VHS. Never mind :-)
I've already indicated above that I personally prefer to work in Director
for certain projects. To be honest, I much prefer to work in Director
anyway. I find it much, much easier. But you will certainly find people
whose preference goes the other way. The thing is, there is no 'right'
answer. I would be very wary of anyone who was dogmatic about Flash being
better than Director or vice-versa.
Macromedia have always (and rightly to my mind) seen Flash and Director as
different products fulfilling different needs. Certainly my own experience
in developing various applications in each has convinced me of the
correctness of their vision. So I don't think Director has a throne from
which it can be deposed by Flash simply because it lives in a different
kingdom.
However, what has happened (at least in the UK) is that people coming into
the multimedia development world have looked at the price of Flash vs.
Director licences and bought Flash because it is cheaper and because it
seems to do much the same thing. In that respect a Mondeo and a Mercedes do
much the same thing. Schools, colleges and universities have also tended to
go for Flash because nowadays they tend to focus soley on web design whereas
they used to focus on a much broader definition of multimedia design. Flash
is explicitly geared to the web and delivering Flash content over the web
certainly hides one of its major failings (consistency and smoothness of
movement within animation sequences). Either way, the net result is a flood
of graduates onto the job market with fair to middling Flash skills and zip
in Director. About five years ago the reverse was true.
So it is easier to find people who know about Flash and this, to my mind,
distorts the picture. It tends to present Flash as the more important
product. Macromedia have also gone over the top in their marketing of Flash
compared to their efforts vis-a-vis Director. (And I am told by that there
are some misgivings within Macromedia and a certain degree of angst at the
highest levels over how to redress the balance.)
I strongly believe that if Macromedia were to decide to discontinue
Director, they could only do so were they to put within Flash the features
that it lacks but which are prominent within Director. To do so would defeat
part of the reason for Flash in the first place. It would no longer be a
quick, easy to use, elegant and efficient tool for producing web content. It
would be a powerful, all-purpose, multimedia development tool. I think that
Macromedia would probably call such a product something like... oooh....
err.... Director!
This might help you to decide:
a) Is there anything you can in Director that you cannot do in Flash? - Yes.
b) Is there anything you can do in Flash that you cannot do in Director? -
No
As with any project, the trick is to do a comprehensive specification
document followed by a detailed structural and functional design (including
storyboards, external interfaces, etc.) and then choose the development tool
that is capable of meeting your requirements.
What you never do is decide that "I program in X, therefore whatever project
I undertake I will always use X." That way lies a pissed off client!
May your code be bug-free and your interfaces user-friendly
Ian :-)
"Paul Neave" <pa...@neave.com> wrote in message
news:bu5ukd$e1nvh$1...@ID-122426.news.uni-berlin.de...