Hi, >>> If you don't care about learning the code, why would you care about whether it's AS3 or not?
To me that point is missing from Colin's argument, Adobe made the effort to include 2 VM's so old content would be supported. Just us AS2. Am I missing something? >>> I think so... From the article, it's clear the he's not saying, "let's go back to on/onclipevent" handlers, but rather make it as easier for people who are not programmers and / or are not interested in learning about OO, inheritance, packages and stuff (which is a respectable position, IMO). What he says is, give these people an easier interface in the authoring tool and behind the scenes convert that input into AS 3 code. Which I think is perfectly reasonable and not even technically complex to implement. So, if you're a coder and you want to have more control and make things more OO, neat, clean and such, great. But you shouldn't be forced to go that way for adding even the simplest functionality. I agree with the article and with what Steve has pointed out already. Even from an historical point of view, I think that what made the flash platform ubiquitous was that many people started to create cool stuff for it. And that was possible because there was a relatively low entry barrier. Think about Java on the client side. How many applets do you find around nowadays? Was it because the Java technology was inferior to Flash? I think not, and probably it's still (and certainly was) the opposite way. But to build an applet, you needed to have a fair knowledge of programming. And even then, truth is, especially for the UI part, you can build something that looks way better, in less time, without having necessarily formal knowledge on programming. Of course, when you start to build more complex stuff, things will necessarily get more complex and having better tools and following good pratices will save you time and allow you to even make it possible in the first place. But if you want to do something simple in the simplest possible way, why not? Cheers Juan Pablo Califano 2008/7/16, Barry Hannah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I agree with you to a point Steven, but speaking for myself if I may. > I used to be a "child" as you put it - to the extent that all Flash > developers/designers were back in the day. Keeping up with the code side > of things as they have developed - beyond the expectations of everyone - > has been interesting (I don't have a programming background). We've all > had to grow, as developers and users have expected more from the tools > and the applications made with them. Call it progress, professional > development, whatever. If you don't keep up in this industry you're > toast (or destined to make banners). > > I wonder why someone who likes their timeline paradigm would even bother > with AS3, why not just stick to AS2? You can still code for player 9 and > take advantage of fullscreen or HD. Might not last long but for now why > not? If you don't care about learning the code, why would you care about > whether it's AS3 or not? > > To me that point is missing from Colin's argument, Adobe made the effort > to include 2 VM's so old content would be supported. Just us AS2. Am I > missing something? > > Barry. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven > Sacks > Sent: Thursday, 17 July 2008 12:18 p.m. > To: Flash Coders List > Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0 > > Ashim D'Silva wrote: > > Flash is not a toy. You can't pick it up, with no prior knowledge, and > expect to have a app 2 hours later. > > --- > > This is where we part ways. Flash used to be a toy, and, up until Flash > 8, it still could be. Now, with AS3, Flash has ceased to be a child's > toy and is now only a toy for adults. Child, in this sense, means > non-programmer who is more comfortable with design and timeline > animation, and adult meaning seasoned programmer. > > The notion that Flash is not (or was ever) meant to be easy enough to > just pick up and make something really quick is diametrically opposed to > reality. The reason you see so much BAD Flash is because it was SO EASY > to use for even non programmers. > > It's the same with all the bad HTML. It's like saying that AJAX means > that the web browser is no longer a toy. The difference here is that > browsers still accept "noob" HTML coding standards (according to people > who are AJAX/CSS experts), but Actionscript 3 gives you zero latitude. > > Flash is, at its _root, a vector animation tool with a scripting > language tacked on. To say that a vector animation tool is not a toy is > pretty far off the mark. > > Actionscript 3 takes Flash away from the realm of the artist and into > the realm of the programmer. It makes simple things harder (regardless > if it's better, it's still harder for non-coders) and is thus much less > appealing to its original core audience, and a VAST MAJORITY of the > people who use it. > > Sorry, but good Flash coders are hard to find. You just think otherwise > because you run in these circles. For every person participating in > online Flash development communities, there are thousands who aren't. > > _______________________________________________ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > Scanned by Bizo Email Filter > > > _______________________________________________ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > _______________________________________________ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
