Being its my 12th language I don't find JS that difficult. I object to the design tho. Its a completely inferior and unpredictable design approach. My primary interests are relational database, complex relationships. having classes etc that enable you to deal with the entire screen as a unit is invaluable Look there is a good reason that google is on its third try to replace javascript with something better. If the movement of flash native to the browser succeeds then its eventually going to be game over. Its basics. Can you relate every pixel on the screen in one unified equation and morph it at will mathematically. By the way, I haven't looked lately, been knee deep in other stuff, how is the flash to the browser native going anyway? Dan Pride 1-303-800-0900 1-206-313-4607 Mobile http://danielpride.com www.linkedin.com/in/danielpride/ http://archaeolibrary.com/ http://RideshareGPS.com
On Monday, August 18, 2014 4:07 PM, "Scott Fanetti scott.fane...@gmail.com [flexcoders]" <flexcoders@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Wow - I really don't think this is the forum for character assassination. I've been a polyglot developer and architect for 20 years. One thing in technology is constant - that is change. Adapt. It is childish to cling to a technology like a fanboy. Dynamic languages use different paradigms than strongly typed languages. In these contexts functional styles and extension through composition are favored over extension through inheritance. But these are all just tools for communication between the dev and the user. The users have chosen a route that no longer needs flex/flash. That is neither good nor bad - it just is. You may dislike parts of technology A and think it's inferior to technology B - but have you considered the notion that possibly you may be trying I hammer nails with a saw? You may dislike that JS does not have the type safety of AS. But if you are relying on type checking you are missing the boat. The compiler can't check if your logic is bad. It can only check that something like tab a is in slot b. You still have to unit test. All the skills you bring to solve a problem are only marginally helped by the compiler bitching that a class does not have a method to support an interface. There is nothing inherently bad about prototypical inheritance as opposed to class based inheritance. As a matter of fact you typically don't need to use inheritance in JS. Tell me - is it cleaner to devolve functionality into representations that can be decorated onto any object - and you test the functionality itself? Or to HAVE to inherit from class A in order to get the features if class A? You can't do multiple inheritance in AS - so you have to hack around with interfaces and utils or you must repeat yourself. In JS - just decorate what you need with what you need it to do. It's all good bro. I'm just saying that as a seasoned flex dev that feared moving to JS - in my experience - it was an easy transition. But whatever. Have a great day! And I accept the apology you certainly forgot to add by calling me a manager :). I realize it's hard to be civil when someone is wrong on the internet. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 18, 2014, at 9:50 AM, "danielpr...@yahoo.com [flexcoders]" <flexcoders@yahoogroups.com> wrote: >> js is almost exactly like Actionscript. >Typical of a JS advocate, no real knowledge of object oriented structures and >concepts. Bet this is by another manager type that doesn't know an array from >a variable (actually that WOULD be the same level of knowledge in this case >wouldn't it.)
