When it comes to such a discussion in comparing two different types of coding for a website, it really becomes a subjective topic.  Despite this fact, there are significant differences between the two that may help you make a decision in which code you will use the next time you build a website.

Although there are similarities in their layout, the results of the codes are noticeably different.  HTML tends to have a more formal, static design, focusing on grids and set parameters to create an efficient layout.  Used most commonly in ecommerce, government, and business websites, it monopolizes the internet.  The ease of use of the code has allowed it to be used by teens on social networking websites like Myspace, and in producing their own website through cheap or free web domains.  While popular, and seemingly infinitely customizable, there are limitations in its showmanship.

Actionscript, the code used in the Adobe (once Macromedia) Flash program, can have a static structure as well, but is more often used for its ability to animate a website into an extravagant performance.  If implemented properly, the animation works seamlessly with the website layout, creating a powerfully effective piece of web design.  Though extremely artistic, the code rarely runs past that scheme, often considered flashy (no pun intended) and unprofessional.

Both imply interactive elements, and that is the key.  Despite their strengths and weaknesses, the efficiency of any website is connecting the customer to the website.  A powerful way to do that is through interactive elements like blogs and forums.  Both actionscript and html have the code capable of creating these simple pieces to be more personable with the customer.  Building a relationship, even in an online environment, can be exceedingly helpful in increasing business.

Those who are unfamiliar with graphic design are often unaware of Adobe Illustrator.  Yet, when asking for help in a design area they will demand the project be “Photoshopped”.  As design evolves, the use and need of programs does as well.  Photoshop used to be the dominant program in graphic design, but slowly, at least from within the industry, the program is taking a backseat to Illustrator.

Produced by the same company Adobe, the programs have not been struggling for control of the industry, in fact it is quite the opposite, they work together quite well and support each other.  The most obvious difference between the two programs is their way of processing graphics.  Photoshop is based around raster, using pixels, while Illustrator is based around vector, which is focused on numbers and calculation.  Photoshop is strong in its customization and expansive features, but is limited, more so by the hardware being used, in the sizes it can reach and not become distorted.  In an opposite manner, Illustrator does not have quite an extensive editing system, but it will never have a weak resolution no matter the size.

As the two programs continue to adapt to better suit each other, they have begun to merge, sharing similar features of one another.  Photoshop has become easier to work with in higher resolutions as well as incorporating vector features, and Illustrator is expanding more of its features to be more customizable.  So far, the programs have worked well together, and it will be a shame the day they no longer need each other, but it will come to great applause for those who no longer wish to switch back and forth between the programs to complete a single project.

An epidemic is striking America, destroying its entertainment industry like a cancer.  Theatrical films have been suffocating under the plastic blanket of lazy writers.  A decent script is fewer and further between than in any previous generation.  The film industry will never fail to bring in the crowds, but the quality of films is sure to decrease with the fall of originality.

With a mass of remakes and sequels exploding onto the screen, originality is becoming an endangered species.  With classic horror films like Halloween and Friday the 13^th getting their remakes, and comics, toys, and videogames producing their own films, there are few films provided in the summer with any depth and freshness of their own.  For the foreseeable future, many production companies are expecting their blockbusters to be remakes, sequels, or adaptations. Needless to say, some of these remakes had validity, applying modern, advanced elements to a bland film with a great script, but after the success of several of these remakes, such as the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, remakes have been spawning like viruses.  In the same manner, sequels are deserved for those films that do extremely well, but one thing to consider is the movies that are getting these sequels.  Recent sequels have been remakes of older films (Halloween, Ocean’s Eleven), based on old cartoons and toys (Transformers), or comics (Iron Man, Spider-Man).Having said that, there is something to be said for adaptations.  A common misconception of films is how often it is adapted from a play or book.  In fact, a great number of films are based on novels and are never mentioned as such.  Is there more respect to be had for films based on novels as opposed to videogames?  Perhaps.  There is certainly a difference in the quality put into a novel and the writing of most videogames.  It can certainly be seen on film that few videogame adaptations have been able to succeed in driving any emotions beyond fear or shallow enjoyment.