GeorgeB wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Thanks for replying. I almost agree with your saying. Only let me clear
> one-two details:
>
> To my comment :
> What's bugging me is that all my current work done for the last 2 years, has
> to be referencing as been done in a non-existing (now obsolete?) framework,
> that as time goes will have its trade name placed next to T-Rex. As I
> understand it, this marketing decision is devaluating my investment in a
> development platform. (Not my first time unfortunatelly)
>
> You reply:
>
>> Nobody has said the Flex framework is going anywhere.
>>
>
> This is true. The framework stays (for the time..) but the brand name has
> gone! Flex is no longer.
>
> Then what I 've been developing for 2 years is Flex3 RIA with Tomcat plus
> BlazeDS, plus Hibernate persistance backend. The heavy business logic has no
> stunning images or any animations, depending on the end target group of
> users.
> Overviewing the end result, I am only considering scale up options, like
> LCDS, different database etc. On the other hand Flex was the choice, as the
> other way (building with AJAX or similar approaches) were out-ruled from the
> beggining. Flex was the strong point and only real option. (If swf is being
> "played" by Flash Player, this was not the reason I 've chosen Flex, believe
> me)
>
> Now Flex is gone and though I still have a complete application on Flex3 by
> the end of 2009 (I was already not thinking about transcripting to Flex4 -
> excuse me to Flash4) I certainly don't know what to state as key advantages
> of the application. Like, it is based on an extinct brand name product? You
> can't advertise such a advantage, can you?
>
Yes, I can see your point. I think the two of us are the only people who
think that the Flex brand is weakened by the Flash moniker.
> Thanks
> George
>
> --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Paul Andrews <p...@...> wrote:
>
>> GeorgeB wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all. hi Tom, hi Nick, hi Wally
>>>
>>> I have to thank you for your understanding! The common denominator of all
>>> answers on why the new version of Flex Builder 3 should be renamed to Flash
>>> Builder 4 is "WTF No big deal". Or better, as Tom put it: "Just marketing
>>> bollocks!!" LOL
>>>
>>>
>> It may just be a name, but as your post shows people are confused by
>> these changes and it is worse for people who don't understand what Flex
>> is. A ton of people still associate flash with childish eye candy.
>>
>>> Then I can call myself anything I like, as long as I keep exercising
>>> succesfully my discipline writting code in a framework used to be called
>>> Flex Builder (plug-in IDE to Eclipse) and now called Flash Builder IDE.
>>> What's bugging me is that all my current work done for the last 2 years,
>>> has to be referencing as been done in a non-existing (now obsolete?)
>>> framework, that as time goes will have its trade name placed next to T-Rex.
>>> As I understand it, this marketing decision is devaluating my investment in
>>> a development platform. (Not my first time unfortunatelly)
>>>
>>>
>> Nobody has said the Flex framework is going anywhere.
>>
>>> Although not a stickler, I believe marketeers shouldn't be creating a mess
>>> out of logic. Like presenting us a product named Flash Builder4 with no
>>> previous Flash Builder3. If they think Flash Builder IS the name, why don't
>>> they call this "new" product just "Flash Builder v1"? Or, are they afraid
>>> this would confuse the market?
>>>
>>>
>> Adobe is getting into a mess with product names.
>>
>>> BTW should this "Flexcoders" group be renamed to "Flashcoders"? Or keep it
>>> going as is? (Resembling groups of practicioners in now extinct obscure
>>> arts, black magic etc? if you excuse me the pun..)
>>>
>>>
>> It's still coding using MXML and the Flex class framework, so I don't
>> see that the name should change. I didn't see that the tool name should
>> have changed either - for the same reason.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>> Thanks all for the very thoughtful replies
>>> George
>>>
>>> --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Wally Kolcz <wkolcz@> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 1.) Keeping all their items more focused on the 'Flash Platform'.
>>>> 2.) Call yourself a 'Flash Developer specializing in the Flex
>>>> Framework'. Flex is not a language, its a Framework. It runs your
>>>> application on a 2 frame time line. Frame 1 is the application loader,
>>>> Frame 2 is your application. MXML gets compiled into ActionScript. All
>>>> tags are easy representations of true AS classes. It is created for
>>>> speed. Kinda like how ColdFusion is compiled into Java. You can create
>>>> full working Flex apps without any MXML. I guess if you are worried
>>>> about being confused with an animator call yourself a 'ActionScript
>>>> Developer specializing in the Flex Framework'
>>>> 5.) Doubt it too. They seem just to be aligning all the products related
>>>> to Flash with Flash (Flash Builder, Flash Professional, Flash Catalyst)
>>>> 6.) Blaze will probably remain around as a lesser version of LCDS. You
>>>> lose some really cool features, but don't pay the monster price tag. I
>>>> think Adobe knows that some of the success of Flash/Flex is that
>>>> streaming data interaction and to only offer a pay version (LCDS) would
>>>> stunt the growth of the community. Not all independant developer, web
>>>> hosts, or small-mid companies can afford the full LCDS price tag.
>>>>
>>>> On 2/2/2010 4:42 AM, GeorgeB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> I am a fully occupied Flex v3 developer, and don't have spare time to
>>>>> switch to Flex v4 before the projects I work on are over and done.
>>>>> While on the side subject that Gordon Smith (post 152124) raised, may
>>>>> I ask for reasonable answers? (since what I read worry me a lot about
>>>>> the future of my projects support from Adobe):
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. What was the meaning of Adobe changing the name from Flex Builder
>>>>> (v3) to Flash Builder, while keeping the upgrade path from v3 to v4?
>>>>> 2. I used to call myself a Flex developer, i.e MXML plus AS3
>>>>> programmer. Should I have to call myself a Flash developer from now on?
>>>>> 3. I understand there were Flash developers around since the very
>>>>> begining. They have expertise among other things in timeline effects
>>>>> and sequential animation programming using tools like Creative Suite
>>>>> (Photoshop etc) way out of my discipline of database RIAs. Do I have
>>>>> to describe myself as a creative animator now?
>>>>> 4. If this is v4 of something, shouldn't that be an update of it's
>>>>> previous version 3? (In this case does Flex = Flash?)
>>>>> 5. Is Adobe running out of trade names? (or running out of what?)
>>>>> 6. Also what's the future of BlazeDS after recent marketing
>>>>> developments on LCESDS (or is it LCDSES?)?
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW I used to think of Adobe as a technology company. Am I mistaken?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks all
>>>>> George
>>>>>
>>>>>
