Shareware Sencha Touch For Mac

Shincha tea leaves Shincha ( 新茶), 'new tea', represents the first month's harvest of sencha. Basically, it is the same as ichibancha ( 一番茶), 'the first-picked tea', and is characterized by its fresh aroma and sweetness. 'Ichibancha' distinguishes 'shincha' from both 'nibancha' ('the second-picked tea') and 'sanbancha' ('the third-picked tea'). Use of the term 'shincha' makes emphatically clear that this tea is the year's earliest, the first tea of the season.

The opposite term is kocha ( 古茶), or 'old tea', referring to tea left over from the previous year. Besides the fresh aroma of the young leaves, shincha is characterized by its relatively low content of bitter catechin and caffeine, and relatively high content of amino acid. Shincha is available only for a limited time. The earliest batch, from southern Japan, comes on the market around late April through May. It is popular in Japan, but is available in only limited amounts outside Japan.

It is prized for its high vitamin content, sweetness, and grassy flavour with resinous aroma and minimal astringency. Kabusecha. Main article: Kabusecha ( 冠茶) is sencha grown in the shade to increase amino acids, such as, which contribute to its distinctive flavor. About a week before the tea leaf buds are picked in the spring, the plantation is covered with a screen to cut out the direct sunlight. This shading produces a milder tea than standard sencha. The shaded tea known as differs from kabusecha in that it is shaded for a longer period: about 20 days.

Special nets (kabuse) are hung over the plants to obtain a natural shade without completely blocking out sunlight. Kabusecha Sencha has a mellower flavour and more subtle colour than Sencha grown in direct sunlight. Senchadō.

by Ippodo Tea. Mary Lou Heiss, Robert J. Heiss (23 Mar 2011). Random House LLC. Itoen HP site about shincha. 2010-09-26 at the. Types of sencha.

Itoen Japanese HP site about shincha at. Archived from on 2012-10-23.

Retrieved 2014-03-07. CS1 maint: Archived copy as title. Japanese Kojien dictionary, entry for 'kocha.' .

Itoen HP site about shincha. Mary Lou Heiss, Robert J. Heiss (23 Mar 2011). Random House LLC.

External links. Media related to at Wikimedia Commons.

Developers, please take note of the authors statement below. 'Many developers assume that everyone wants their data to be “in the cloud”, but that's actually not true for a lot of my customers.

Professional researchers often sign agreements in their children's blood stating that their data will be stored on an encrypted disk, won't leave their laptop, and will be destroyed when the research project is completed. “The cloud” is the last place they want their data to go.' There are so many great note taking and productivity application that I just can't use because the majority of my notes are of a confidential nature. If my company provided macbook where to be compromised I would not be held liable, however if my personal dropbox or evernote account where compromised I would be held accountable. I think (hope) that there is a distinction that can arise between 'cloud' applications and services and 'offsite' or 'online' applications.

If you plug together a handful of off the shelf Amazon components, slap a label on it, and open the doors, perhaps that is rightly called a 'cloud' service. The end provider has no accountability to you (or your users) and you have no idea what's going on behind the curtain. It's all just magic happening many layers of abstraction away. But if you build systems, own the platform, write the architecture and provide something that you understand and have accountability for, end to end, I think it can satisfy the skeptics (of which I am one). So in this case, the researcher that can't store the documents on dropbox. Hopefully he could upload them with duplicity to an online storage platform that was built and run like this1.

And I hope that this would be possible because such a distinction could be made. I won't use cloud storage because: 1.

Even in Seattle, internet response time is erratic. Delays anywhere from a second to a couple minutes is commonplace. Using an app requiring constant traffic over the internet is quite unpleasant. The backup problem. If my cloud account 'goes dark' for whatever reason, I'm dead in the water, and I'm helpless to fix it. I simply won't use a cloud solution that doesn't encrypt the data on my machine before sending it to the cloud server. Encrypting it after it gets to the cloud server is unacceptable.

I currently use Jungledisk for backups on Amazon's cloud service because it does encryption locally. The backup problem.

Shareware Sencha Touch For Mac Mac

If my cloud account 'goes dark' for whatever reason, I'm dead in the water, and I'm helpless to fix it. Isn't the cloud part of your back-up strategy? For example, I use OneNote for all of my notes.

It syncs the notes on my PC to the cloud. As long as I'm connected, I have a backup online. Changes also sync to my other computers when they're online.

Additionally, the notebooks are included in the local data backups we make (in our case off-sited to our ISP). Sensitive stuff is encrypted in TrueCrypt, and the TrueCrypt volume is stored on DropBox. MI5/CIA could probably break the encryption, but there are easier ways for them to get at it. The terms of these agreements seem pretty arbitrary and probably present a false sense of security. Properly encrypted data in the cloud is completely secure. In fact it should be impossible to tell from random bits.

On the other hand data on an encrypted disk is not exactly the same thing. It must be made available to the OS whenever the user is logged in. Any breach in security say from an email attachment or malicious website would expose its unencrypted contents.

I wonder what the required policy is for backups? Can they be stored on servers if encrypted? Remote servers? So I'm left with, and is slow. I consider this a bit of a frustrating pseudo-myth. It's true canvas is slow compared to lots of native drawing, but its usually presented as a false equivalency issue.

Canvas didn't set out to replace native drawing of hand-crafted OpenCL. It's an alternative to cross-platform graphics on the web, where you get Canvas or you get Flash (Or SVG or hobbling together colored DOM elements to animate while crying and eating ice-cream out of a gallon tub. We've been there. What's worse, looking at the videos demoing his Mac app1, they don't even look like they'd need canvas levels of performance.

They look like they'd work just fine in SVG. What's wrong in this case with the very good performance across many platforms (even tablets) of the SVG-backed RaphaelJS?2 Unless his app can do things he'd rather not demo, I'm guessing this post is moreso post-hoc rationalization of picking Mac as his preferred development platform. At the risk of being a bit rude, it's worth noting that he doesn't bother with all Desktops, just Mac, which causes further suspicion that this is really just a rationalization piece and not about performance. (Unrelated to the post at hand, this canvas pseudo-myth also upsets me because I spend big chunks of free time helping people with their canvas work, and its almost always an issue on the programmer's part. This is fine, I've never fault a programmer for writing less-than-optimal code, but often programmers tend to contribute their voices to the chorus of 'Canvas is slow', regardless of looking for fault prior to their declaration.) 1 2. What's wrong in this case with the very good performance across many platforms (even tablets) of the SVG-backed RaphaelJS?

So I attempted to determine the accuracy of this claim. I ran a benchmark from Kevin Roast 1 who seems to author a lot of Canvas demos. For each of the 8 tests in his benchmark, I recorded the FPS reading that I saw that was the lowest (e.g., framerate dropped to X at some point during the 5-second test). Mac iPad 20fps 16fps 29fps 18fps 30fps 21fps 30fps 30fps 28fps 6fps 29fps 18fps 29fps 7fps 12fps 30fps meanmac = 25.875, medianmac = 29 meanipad = 18.25, medianipad = 18 On the Mac side, I can see both sides of the issue. Arguably 26-29fps in a wide variety of situations is good enough for a wide variety of applications. At the same time, I can understand the author really wanting to blow past 29fps. On the iPad side, the issue is more clear.

I think most people would say that 18fps is unacceptable for a drawing application. (If these numbers are contributing to the 'pseudo-myth' of slow Canvas performance, please point me to a reasonable benchmark. This one is just the most comprehensive one that I found.) At the risk of being a bit rude, it's worth noting that he doesn't bother with all Desktops, just Mac, which causes further suspicion that this is really just a rationalization piece and not about performance. He addresses the choice of the Mac platform in some detail in the 'Drawbacks' and 'Conclusions' section of the post. At the risk of being a bit rude, it's poor form to dismiss someone's reasoning as a 'rationalization' without addressing the reasoning on the merits. To the extent that his choice of Mac over Windows et al is specious, it is not a claim that is supported by your comment. In the sentence you quoted I'm referring to SVG, not canvas, and the 'in this case' refers to mapping apps, not games.

I never made any claims with regards to games. In the test you quoted the goal is to stress it until it could only handle 30fps (it says so on the page), so you necessarily must see 30fps for the test to go on to the next one. That is why your median score on the Mac is 29fps, because it degrades smoothly on the desktop compared to a mobile device. If you want to see many devices peg 60fps on the canvas (the rate imposed by requestAnimationFrame), you can use a demo like MS' Fish one.1 Your Mac ought to get 60fps for 1000 fish on a 1920 x 1075 canvas with no sweat.

Sencha Touch Framework

This is not a very interesting test, and I don't know what it will look like on an iPad, but it more than enough accounts for any animation you might see in a mapping application. Browser vendors with cross-platform drawing kits just don't invest the same kind of effort into drawing lines and circles. As a result, large areas seem laggy on most browsers, whereas native apps “just work”. (“Are the graphics pre-computed?”) This is incorrect.

Firefox and Safari use Core Graphics (Quartz) just as Mac native apps do. Things like lines and circles go through the exact same SSE-accelerated routines. I don't know off the top of my head whether Chrome uses Skia or Core Graphics on the Mac, but either way, its blitting routines use SSE optimizations as well. the Canvas spec requires things to be not-premultiplied It does, but unfortunately neither Webkit nor Gecko respect this. Take a PNG with an alpha channel and draw it to a canvas over a white div then read back the pixels; you get the pixels premultiplied by the white behind it.

Same with other backing colors. There are cases where it won't premultiply, but unfortunately they're a minority.

Shareware Sencha Touch For Mac

(The reason I ran across this particular case is that I use PNGs to compress data, and using the alpha channel to store data is impossible because of the premultiplication.). Warning, rant: Web does not mean ubiquitous network availability.

It's a turn of phrase that only seems to originate from Silicon Valley and Redmond. When I get on the London Underground my network is gone. When I drive from Cape Town to Hout Bay my network disappears. When I go into my favourite coffee shop in Berlin my network disappears. If an app (Evernote, for example) relies on a non- store-and-forward network connection to hook me up with my data it gets uninstalled.

I can't use Trello for the same reason. When I need my data I need my data. I've seen the case of Sencha Facebook app brought up many times now, but I've never seen someone point out their huge flaw in the scrolling. At one point in the demo, they trivially dismiss the fact that they made the scrolling inertia smaller to give the data a chance to load; but that's in my opinion THE main flaw of the app. As a matter of fact, that's the first thing I notice on every web app I've seen to date: the quirky scrolling physics.

For me, Sencha's implementation falls right in that uncanny valley and it kills the UX of the app each time for me. I don't see why they put so much emphasis on the loading speed or smoothness (not that it's not important), when all this effort to improve the UX is completely offset by the scrolling.

I've been using the FB app since it arrived on iOS. At one point it was a decent app, but it is far from being the gold standard. The last few updates have just introduced more bugs and lag to the experience.

Lately I don't even know if I clicked the 'comments and likes' text reliably. You can't tell if you missed the ridiculously small hit target or if it is just taking the usual 3-5 seconds to give you any kind of indication it is doing anything.

That's just one example of a frustrating experience, but I consistently have others—zooming and panning pictures randomly closes them, likes sometimes never show up, my own posts won't be visible on the phone, only on the web, etc. his own comfort and expertise with it - which is fine, of course.

With the advancements made in web tech today Do you have any expertise developing for desktop/native mobile? I have a lot of expertise developing for the web—I've spent 4x as much being the web developer before switching to iOS programming full-time and every time I see someone presenting web tech as a superior way to build apps I have a hard time taking this seriously. If there is a lack of expertise it must be the other way: web devs don't know what native frameworks offer. Sure we can push and twist and stretch a systems with foundations met for the marking-up document structure and styling document presentation to fit the needs for the up, but what's really the point? Yes there is the promise of develop once run on every platform, which in practice is more like develop core once, endlessly tweak for idiosyncrasies later. And when the web tech really works for mobile app it usually just means that your app had to be a web page anyway. You've mis-read my statement as some sort of attack on native development and counter-attacked accordingly - even personally?

I never said web tech was superior. I'm simply presenting a counter-argument to those that continue to deride web development and claim it can't hold a candle to native apps. There are endless examples of web applications done right that have compelling experiences and perform on par with native apps.

I've provided a couple of examples in this thread, but there are countless others. I'm simply claiming web apps can be done right. No offense, but with that intro to your post and the way you follow it up, you strike me as exactly the person in question who has been out of the web dev game for a bit and doesn't know how much it's progressed in the last 3 years alone.

It's not hard to do responsive design. Yes, in iOS world you can still hard code 5 layouts if you want. Those of us that have also done Android design work understand why that's untenable moving forward. I'll take relative layouts, etc and be very happy with Bootstrap/Foundation. This made me scratch my head. Desktop apps have been accommodating multiple screen and window sizes since before the Internet existed. Do you think we hard-code a separate layout for every window size?

I don't know if responsive design is 'hard' or not, but I observe that on the web, fixed widths are still incredibly common, and even major sites break easily. I visit Google, and if my window size is not at least one thousand pixels, the Sign In button is clipped and not initially visible.

This would simply be considered a bug in a desktop app. Besides, I always thought that layout was one of the weakest parts of HTML and CSS - witness the endless parade of hacks to achieve equal height columns. As someone who feels fairly proficient in CSS and also has experience with desktop application layout stuff (Swing, Qt, XAML mostly) I can say that CSS does feel like a hack. It was conceived as a (more or less) simple stylesheet language for (mostly) textual documents. By now it's used not only to style increasingly-complex document layouts but also application UIs and in that respect it definitely falls short of what other (widget-based) things could achieve for years.

It gets better with some of the CSS3 layouts which more closely mirror what's ben available in the desktop world for ages, but using those is just a recipe for »Your site looks like crap on my browser« mails because they're not standardised yet or not yet widely-implemented (or your target audience uses something else than the bleeding-edge version). Docuprint c1190fs printer driver for mac. Neither Microsoft Office nor Google Docs 'just worked' on tablets and phones without major reworking of their UIs.

It's not obvious that the web has any advantage here - I just now visited docs.google.com and was encouraged to 'download the Google Drive iOS app' so that I can 'edit documents.' (!) If you target multiple platforms with one app, you get an app that works from OK to poorly on lots of platforms. Look at Light Table as an example: done entirely via web technologies, easy to port everywhere, but feels incredibly alien and wrong on my Mac. (No offense Chris!) Compare to Sublime Text 2, which to my understanding has lots of platform-specific code to make it feel native on each platform, but also a shared core (using Cairo, etc). So 'six native apps' need not cost anywhere near six times a single native app. So in the end, the cost of targeting multiple platforms with a single app is surely lower than targeting each platform individually, but that's just a classic cost/quality tradeoff - the web limits your polish.

And what good is having your app on multiple platforms if it's inferior to native alternatives on all of them? I know as a Mac user, I'll pick the Mac app that feels like a Mac app every time.

Your comparison of Wizard with Refine is misguided. The two products do completely different things. Refine 'refines' data into a usable form. Wizard is a stats and visualization tool for understanding an already-clean dataset.

Last I checked, Refine actually runs a local web server, even if its client is in the browser, so it's not that different from a native app. Wizard also does incredible amounts of visualization that Refine doesn't do. (disclaimer: I purchased Wizard a few months ago and have been exceptionally happy with it - it's a brilliant product).

So, pair Refine with d3.js and you've got both. There's no reason I see to require native application for data visualization unless you absolutely need to load enormous amounts of data, but the value in the visualization itself tends to diminish the more datasets you shove in it.

D3.js has very powerful visualization tools. He chose to build is tool in the native Mac platform, which is great, and great to hear the product is really useful for you - I'm just defending against alternative tech choices. If you wanted to build this in web tech, I think you surely could.

I'm not saying it should be built in web tech, but I disagree with the notion that it couldn't be built in web tech. Sure, your web app might feel instantaneous when your server is sitting across the LAN, but many users have crappy Internet connections, or are downloading a Torrent, or are living in New Zealand. New Zealand's internet speeds are just abysmal. On behalf of kiwis everywhere, can I ask that you all stop writing your own wrappers for web based videos? Instead, upload your videos to YouTube and embed that on your site.

Their buffering is orders of magnitude better than some of the half baked crap I see from other people, probably because streaming video is YouTube's core business so they've focused a lot of time and attention on getting it right. If you live in urban parts of United States or Asia it's not a problem you'd notice, but for the rest of us it's a daily nuisance.

Maybe he meant WebGL, but even then it could be done very well as with more modern OpenGL variants with bitmapped font tables. OpenGL on Mac is 3.2 IIRC. Nvidia recently tinkered with proprietary version of OpenVG with beautiful text rendering capabilities. There are numerous ways to make great text with OpenGL be performant with native code. Even GUIs with IMGUI approach.

Some of those techniques could be done with WebGL, I'm sure. So, I don't really understand his point about text and OpenGL a no go Sure, WebGL is not all you can get with native and OpenGL, but nowhere near a fiasco in performance. Well, according to this 1 the Mac install base is around 66 million users. So, if 20% of them bought your app for $1 you'd be $13 million dollars richer. That seems worth it to me.

It seems that you are underestimating the size of the market and potential the to make money by writing applications for the Mac. You are also ignoring the fact that Macs sell at a premium so those 66 million represent not the bottom end of the market, but those with money to purchase services to make their lives easier. My estimate of 75 million was conservative, it’s closer to 80 million. Half of all new Macs are sold to people who are ‘new to Mac’1. Even the people who buy a replacement for their old Mac will often find other uses for that old Mac or they will sell it or give it away. One year a go, Mac install base was 66 million.

Since then, 17 million Macs have been sold. 8.5 million of those are sold to people who never owned a Mac before.

Let’s imagine that all the remaining 8.5 million units are bought by existing Mac users, and that half of them are bought because the old Macs died. That gives us a new total of 78.75 million.

Until instantaneous data transfer discovered (where the speed of light isn't the limit), the closer one is to the processor the faster the application will be. The point being that with data manipulation unless you have a huge bandwidth, the packet size can match and the ability to assure rare outages (if ever) applications on ones personal computer, with personal data will always be faster. The point being is all the discussion regarding performance on desktops vs web applications is moot when we are at least a decade away from everyone having internet connections capable of instantaneously transferring hundreds of megabytes of data. Personally, I can barely stand web applications, I want my computer to move as fast or faster than I think. Make error cannot copy create file in /path/hft7ahd7wtyc7hoy4awt/blabla/thing I had already searched and found people with the same problems, but it boils down to hardship between xcode and cross-platform build software like cmake and others. I don't want to bash apple, but it feels awkward to be a dev and watching apple digging up their NS tech to put in everyone's mouth, even if there are business with big working c codebases.

Being incompatible with the competition is still a strategy, even if apple use unix-flavored stuff. Lot's of applications use generic abstractions and look good at the same time. Firefox, LibreOffice, VirtualBox and etc. If you don't know how to make good GUI using generic toolkits it doesn't mean it's not possible. Anyway, if you buy application for its 'looks' - there is something seriously wrong already. It should look good, no doubt, but it should be functional first. as is the case for most productivity and design apps Completely the opposite.

They tend to provide completely custom, not native looking UIs, and therefore using cross platform toolkits for them only makes more sense. Years ago I would have agreed with you, now I'm not so sure. Most users know so little about the UI of their computers that they don't know when to click the mouse once or twice. They spend their day working on Windows, checkout Facebook on their iPhone on the way home, play a game on a Playstation then send some email using Gmail on Safari.

Then you have the major changes within operating systems over recent years, Windows Vista/7 and Windows 8 both introduced major UI changes as has OS/X. Peoples interaction with computers has become much more diverse. Unless the UI is jarringly different they just aren't going to notice. Sorry, but I guess you lack in the understanding of both.

Yeah, app caching looks nice in theory. Now implement it reliably in practice. What will you use in the place of Core Data? Local storage? IndexedDB(with no support in default browser both on iOS and Android)?

How will your replacement for UITableView with reusable cells look like? How about the same combined with UIFetchedResultController? I am not even talking about Core Graphics, animation, etc, etc. Sorry, but anyone really wanting to advance web tech on mobile should first learn what native SDKs really offer. And then think long and think hard about an answer to this question: 'Should we?Why?' How about finding the way finally to serve responsible images on the web instead of fighting wars against native apps?

I'm well aware of what native SDKs offer. I don't know why you assumed I'm unfamiliar with native development. As for the last statement, and much of the others, I'm not even sure what you're asking. If you want a nice syntax for it, then yeah, wait for the spec to be finished.

Otherwise, you're probably implementing that logic yourself. The same as if you want a native app to pull in different assets (unless we're talking about UI assets and a sane OS, but still, it's not like that's a compelling lacking feature). Look, I'd be happy to be wrong but there are half a dozen inaccuracies in this very article about what is possible with web technology and how browsers themselves work. Am I suggesting Angry Birds in web tech (even though it's already been done): No. Am I suggesting that shit basic apps like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc make more sense as simple, functional, accessible webapps?