I agree with Chris that target #1 is developers migrating from Flash. But, #2 is a very close second with JS developers looking for better productivity.
#2 is where we can have a real win in terms of adoption. I think the reason js developers seem to always flutter from framework to framework is that they’re looking for better efficiency and not really finding it. I’m not sure what the minimal feature set for version 1 is, but I’m not sure what percentage of enterprise apps use AMF modules and resource bundles. It would be interesting to know if there’s any indicators on that. On Jan 13, 2017, at 10:44 AM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: > Well from my point of view it was the whole “write once run everywhere” > thing. > I was totally annoyed of having to write UI things once and then patch and > bugfix things for all the other Browsers. > > But in general I think you (Alex) and I have one great difference in our > assumption of who will probably be our generation 1 users. > > You assume it’s mainly the people wanting to create new applications. That’s > why you see 1.0 the way you do it. > > I, on the other side, think that our generation 1 users would probably be > people migrating legacy Flex applications to FlexJS. > > The reason, why I think that way, is that no matter what bank or insurance > company I have worked for in the last 4 years. I always encounter Flashplayer > maintenance updates. I usually ask why Flash? And always get the answer: “We > still got some legacy applications that need that”. A little more > investigation usually shows that there are loads of applications still in > production internally which are built in Flex. There are plans to migrate to > JavaScript, but there just isn’t enough budget to simply rewrite something > with the only benefit in the end being no longer to require the Flashplayer. > For me “Flex” is stigmatized. Even if it’s not deserved, it’s still a > reality. I doubt that someone wanting to try out the latest cool stuff will > tend to go directly towards a stigmatized technology, not if there’s all the > cool React, Angular2, Typescript and similar stuff out there that does “the > same we promise to provide”. > > If we get FlexJS to a point where it’s easy to migrate we sort of offer the > only option the people stuck in a dead-end with Flash have to migrate to > JavaScript at a fraction of the costs. That’s why I’m continuing to argue to > add the most essential Flex features to FlexJS. It doesn’t matter if AMF > support is slower than JSON or than AMF was on Flash. It just have to be > there to ease the migration path. Same with skinning. It’s been used quite a > lot and this I one concept where migrating isn’t just a matter of replacing > some classes. If there is no skinning support all the Components have to be > completely rewritten. Eventually we could do without modules, even if I think > they are essential, but for me it’s: > > - AMF Support > - Skinning > - Modules > - ResourceBundles and I18N > > Which we need in order to ease the migration path. > > Chris > > > Am 13.01.17, 00:24 schrieb "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com>: > > > > On 1/12/17, 12:46 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira" > <carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> wrote: > >> We need some strategy, and we must think about what others are giving in >> comparison with us. >> In LTE I think our solution win, but right now is complicate convince >> business to choose us over Angular/React, since is world trending. >> >> So I'm with Chris that we need to give things others doesn't have, for me >> maven is one of that things, but is something in the backstage. >> We need more things on that make us different. One of those things is AMF, >> and since many Flex apps out there have it is a key point to make them >> move >> to FlexJS. > > I guess I'm wondering why folks chose Flex in the first place. Was it > some cool feature? If so, what was it? My assumption has been that the > real reason folks chose Flex (or maybe the reason they stayed) was about > Developer Productivity. A feature fight will be very difficult for us to > win without more contributors. Any feature we can produce as an advantage > would likely be short-lived: the other frameworks will simply produce the > same feature. > > But we can win or at least compare more favorably on helping you get your > app into production faster and having fewer maintenance issues because we > are a single-source provider of both a declarative language and an > object-oriented language and have a tool chain in our workflow. And, I > still believe that having a SWF version of your app will be very valuable. > For those who are interested in modules, without the runtime verification > that Flash has, you will be at the mercy of any synchronization issues > between the code that loads the module and the code in the module. Flash > will tell you right when the module loads that it doesn't meet the > interface contract. When will you find out when running just in JS? > > My 2 cents, > -Alex > > >
