Definitely I will get back to the discussion whether we are ready or not for 1.0 once I release 0.9.6.
śr., 17 lip 2019 o 10:36 Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> napisał(a): > Piotr, > > my guess around low adoption by old flex users and new users is that we are > still behind 1.0 and docs are still on the works. > When we get to pass that point we'll be able to be more aggressive in > communication efforts. I mean try to be exposed in publications > specialized webs, and more. But the key point to do so is when we have > Royale SDK and NPM publications be super easy to use and most > people coming does not need too much effort to be up and running with > royale. > > it's like putting a rocket into orbit, everything depends on getting out of > the stratosphere. I think we are very close to that point, but there are > still a few months to reach 1.0 and be able to invest time that way. If we > do it before, we can create the inverse effect on new users. > > On the other hand, cases like the one you expose are from people who are > very outside Flex and do not even follow it. Therefore he does not know > anything about FlexJS and Royale changes. For that type of people the > important thing would be that when they search in google for things like > "apache flex to html" Apache Royale appears directly to them, something > that does not happen right now. In opposite, If you search "apache flex > migration" we appear first place thanks to [1]. But maybe that page should > be revisited to make it behave as a starting point for people reaching to > Royale. > > just my 2 > > [1] > > https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/create-an-application/migrate-an-existing-app/migrate-from-flex.html > > > > El mié., 17 jul. 2019 a las 9:42, Piotr Zarzycki (< > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>) > escribió: > > > The reality is showing that since this project exists I don't see any > > single user who came from JS/.NET/Java world to our framework. Everyone > who > > are interested are from Flex/ActionScript world. At the beginning the > > strategy with name changing was great, but it shows that is not working > or > > even worse some people are still lost and don't know that Royale exists - > > even if they are from Flex world. [1] > > > > Crux is a great name, but if there is a word "marketing" attached to this > > discussion - +1 for Swiz still, cause it takes an attention to us and > this > > is exactly what we need. More new fresh blood here which really help us > > with new features. > > > > [1] > > > > > http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/Update-for-FlexJS-Falcon-JX-td65654.html > > > > śr., 17 lip 2019 o 09:30 Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> > > napisał(a): > > > > > Hi Yishay, > > > > > > El mié., 17 jul. 2019 a las 8:05, Yishay Weiss (< > yishayj...@hotmail.com > > >) > > > escribió: > > > > > > > > > > > It’s true we wanted a separated identity, but as I recall we always > had > > > In > > > > mind to engage the Flex user base. I think it’s important to consider > > > that > > > > when deciding on a name. > > > > > > > > > > > My point when I pushed the change to Royale name was to try to start > from > > > scratch. I thought at that time (and continue doing so) that we have a > > > great technology that can be considered new by itself. It just comes > from > > > old concepts (Flex) but brings new "old" ones (HTML) to the stage to > make > > > something with its own identity. So doing a name change to Royale name > > (and > > > concept) and then making other parts still be in the old strategy seems > > > strange to me and makes me think that the marketing purpose is not > > > understood what could be a problem with my way of doing things, > community > > > does not understand it or does not care much or a mix of both. > > > > > > People coming from Flex, will start to dig into website, docs and other > > > things and if they was intererested in Swiz, they will read that Crux > is > > > what they need. The same as people that comes from Flash now that now > is > > > Adobe Animate. But for people new or coming from HTML (or that ears > > > something about Flash declining), they will see another piece in a > > > ecosystem called Royale that is part of a whole, and can choose to use > it > > > or not... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I appreciate your efforts in that regard and am sure everyone else > > does. > > > I > > > > don’t think having reservations about a name is a criticism of your > > > efforts. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your words Yishay, good to know. Is not about reservations > > for a > > > concrete name, but for a strategy of doing things. I expressed that it > > > could not be "Crux", any other name with some features could fit right. > > My > > > observations are just to take the kind of name that disrupts the type > of > > > effort we are doing in terms of brand and we decided to change a long > > time > > > ago. > > > > > > -- > > > Carlos Rovira > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Piotr Zarzycki > > > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki > > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>* > > > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > http://about.me/carlosrovira > -- Piotr Zarzycki Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
