As the title says; lots of freely available coding books. Pretty long list. Free learning is good.
Experiencing a problem where a page randomly crashes in Internet Explorer 7 with no warning.
Work-in-progress blog posting, but found this so far: http://groups.google.com/group/IEToolbar-Group-Bugs/msg/fd808abaa72524ea?pli=1.
The crash report requires more Googling it seems:
Access violation – code c0000005 (first chance) eax=00000000 ebx=00000001 ecx=00000000 edx=00000007 esi=00219ec8 edi=00000000
eip=3cf6e923 esp=01e5ddf0 ebp=01e5ddf0 iopl=0 nv up ei pl nz ac pe cy
cs=001b ss=0023 ds=0023 es=0023 fs=003b gs=0000 efl=00210213
*** ERROR: Symbol file could not be found. Defaulted to export symbols for C:\W INNT\system32\mshtml.dll -
mshtml!DllGetClassObject+bfa45:
3cf6e923 8b490c mov ecx,[ecx+0xc] ds:0023:0000000c=????????
0:005>
Flash Builder 4 Compiler arguments
ASDoc
TDD in Flash Builder 4
Creating a Flex Mojos Project from an Archetype
ASDoc documentation
How to build a simple Flex project using Maven
ApplicationDomain class
Communicating between SWFs and across domains
List of Flex Compiler Arguments across versions
How -omit-trace-statements Works… Or Does NOT…
Dispatching Custom Events
Passing Arguments with Events
RegExr
The Event Meta Tag in Actionscript 3 and Flex Builder
Singleton classes in AS3
This posting on Lifehacker is very useful if Android’s tendancy towards bouncing you over to mobile versions of sites is annoying you. However, I noticed you can also play around with the Flash plug-in settings using this method too; switching between Flash 10 and Flash Lite (on Froyo anyway).
Adobe Flash received a very welcome shot in the arm recently when Google announced that it was to package Flash with its Chrome browser. Mozilla however have since announced that they have no plans to follow suit.
Flash usually runs comparatively poorly in Firefox, so it’s a shame it’s not receiving any love to improve its performance.
Flashbug; debug Flash content within Firefox via Firebug.
Mozilla have also revealed they’re adding safeguards against Flash crashes in future versions of their browser (much like Chrome offer).
I’ve begun doing some work involving the PlayStation 3 web browser. I thought for ages that it used NetFront as it’s browser manufacturer, but it turns out it’s supposedly proprietary and kinda based on Internet Explorer 4 (thanks @jaffathecake for that). I messed around with the Sony PSP browser years ago and found it to be very sluggish and lied sometimes when you tried to test for certain features.
Anyway, I took a mini adventure across the web to see how a number of popular websites would fair in the PS3 browser and was disappointed to discover that the browser crashed. More than once. Three times in fact, and it wasn’t just a browser crash; the whole PS3 needed restarting on each occasion. I visited such sites as Yahoo! Mail, Hotmail, Flickr and when given the option always went for the non-latest JS-Lite versions whenever presented.
I applaud Sony for updating certain elements associated with browsing so far (such as updating Flash support to version 9), but it’s frustrating when you’re excited to be developing on next-gen consoles only to discover they’re built on very old and flaky browsing technology. I doubt it’s top of their list, but I’d hope within the next few firmware updates they might consider adding to the standards support of their browser.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlWOocHwcLo
Adobe have announced Flash 10.1 for the Nexus One. While it looks okay, I can’t say there’s anything from this early demo which significantly impresses me (either as a developer or web user). It seems the National Geographic demo is primarily geared towards business, as it highlights the ability for Flash ads and banners to finally appear alongside regular web content (yes!). Flash ads and banners are exactly the type of content normal web users would prefer NOT to appear, and this is especially the case if accessing the web across a dodgy 3G connection. As a developer I also couldn’t see much on that site preview which SHOULD’VE been Flash and could’ve just as easily been done in JavaScript (aside from the nested video). Bad example Adobe.
The main thing that bugs me about the video is that Adobe are marketing it as “Flash 10.1″. Unless it provides comparable performance, usability and a feature set to the Flash people know on desktop computers then I don’t think it’s a great idea marketing it with the same product name. You can market it to developers as the same product if coding for either player is largely similar, but to end users it can only lead to disappointment and frustration when their mobile version of Flash doesn’t perform in a similar way, or it doesn’t perform at all due to features of normal desktop 10.1 being disabled in the mobile player. This has occurred with Flash in the past; where versions are marketed as being certain numbered versions but have lots of essential sub functions disabled (sometimes for understandable reasons, such as printing on the Sony PSP Flash Player 6).
It’s for this reason that I don’t have a problem with “Flash Lite” (from an end user’s point of view). It’s identified as a different product, and has typically been distributed across mobile devices… devices which largely share certain feature restrictions in comparison to the desktop versions of Flash. If a user compares Flash Lite between two mobile devices he/she will notice more similarities than differences than if he/she made a comparison with the full version on a desktop computer.
Don’t get me wrong; even though the above dwells on negatives I think it’s great that Flash is coming to Google’s new phone but I think it’s mainly from a development point of view (that I may get to play around with it). With Adobe’s increased focus on the monetisation of Flash I hope they don’t lose focus on the experience of end users (installing, using and maintaining Flash versions) and want they might want from the product.
…depending on how you read the stats (i.e. it measures individual browser versions). Still; it’s reason to remain optimistic that IE6 might soon be a browser we no longer have to code for (unless you live in Africa…or Asia).
I 100% unbiasedablelyed like this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/guide/