Ok, I will remove the "Flash-based solutions no longer desirable"
Anybody besides Maurice think I need to change or remove the "Flex without Flash"? -Alex On 3/24/14 11:52 PM, "Deepak MS" <megharajdee...@gmail.com> wrote: >I looked into this slide: >Why FlexJS? > >Adobe Flash Player used to be in every browser >Adobe AIR used to run on most computers >Executives no longer carry Flash-capable devices >AIR apps require installation and upgrades >AIR apps have some fidelity issues >Flash-based solutions no longer desirable >Large MXML and ActionScript code bases > >I honestly felt that it's depicting flex\flash in a negative way. > >Subject says 'Why FlexJS?', but instead it talks 'Why we shouldn't use >flex\flash'. Flex is so popular because the way it is(running on flash >player with super rich UI). Only problem is it cannot run on mobile >devices >on browser because of flash player limitation. And this is where FlexJS >comes into picture. And I feel we need to portray FlexJS as a powerful >alternative for running flex based apps on mobile browsers. > >I don't think FlexJS would give exact same output as flash player. And >hence I would strongly encourage my customers to use our flex applications >on desktops\laptops and I would give a alternative app(compiled with >FlexJS) for their mobile browsers, which would be light weight. > >I am assuming that FlexJS would be used to convert MXML\ActionScript code. >And if we say 'Flash based solutions no longer desirable' and if people >stop creating flex applications, then the whole purpose of FlexJS would >get >defeated, I reckon. > >That was my perspective. I don't know, all those pointers may sound >correct >for some too. May be it all depends on how each individual would take it >:) > >Agree with Om regarding a mention of new features\enhancements\skinning. > > > > > >On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Justin Mclean ><jus...@classsoftware.com>wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> > 2. The numbers on slide 32 is a outdated. We have more than 40,000 >> > installs of the Flex SDK since we started keeping track. >> >> BTW where do you get the 40,000 number from. I can only see 30,000 in >>the >> google stats. That only include 4.9 and up are you including 4.8 in that >> and if so how did we measure that it got 10,000 downloads? >> >> Thanks, >> Justin
