[Flashcoders] Why Flex?
I haven't used Flex yet and I know little more than of it's existance. I'm pretty accomplished with Flash/AS 2.0 OOP, classes, custom UI components, JSFL, etc. and I'm happy using MX 2004 Pro. I guess I'd classify myself as a programmer by desire and a designer by necessity. My question for the Flex people is this, what does Flex bring to the table that I can not already do with 04 Pro (not counting the new AS 3.0)? I understand Flex is suppose to have something to do with rapid application development through the use of it's components. What's wrong with the UI components in Flash? How do these differ? I want to dive into Flex which will probably happen in the next week or so when my current projects finish. I want to know what to expect. Am I looking at a new way of developing basically the same swfs? Will I be able to do things I currently can not? It seems I keep reading that the programmers will gravitate towards Flex and the designers towards Flash. Maybe a couple of the Flex people can help me try and wrap my head around the "why". It's all a bit fuzzy to me at the moment. Lastly, what's the deal with purchasing? I see Flex Server listed as a product but no IDE listed as a buyable product. Does the IDE come with the server? Is that what Eclipse is? JOR ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Why Flex?
Read the last 2-3 weeks of this list. It's been very well covered already. On 10/27/05, James O'Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > My question for the Flex people is this, what does Flex bring to the > table that I can not already do with 04 Pro (not counting the new AS 3.0)? > > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] Why Flex?
> My question for the Flex people is this, what does Flex bring to the > table that I can not already do with 04 Pro (not counting the new AS 3.0)? Allot! 1. There are tons of details in building apps in Flash 2004 Pro that just get removed when using Flex. All the small painful lessons that you needed to know disappear as they are built into the Flex Framework. This allows you to focus on the actual application you are building. 2. Better components and more of them. Containers, VBox, Repeaters, oh my! 3. Larger applications. Building very large scale applications in Flex is very feasible where it was hard to do this with Flash 2004 Pro. You can reuse blocks of MXML in Flex as a component. 4. MXML generates AS Classes. MXML is a code generator, it takes a simple XML hierarchy and generates an AS class representing your app just before compilation. As MXML is translated before compilation, tags can provide embedding of graphics, component generation, and UI generation that is very exact and detailed. In Flash the hierarchy of an application is hidden from the developer, where in Flex the hierarchy is directly what is added into the MXML XML tree. Flex is right aligned. I felt the same thing about Flex 10 months ago. It took being dropped into a Flex project to see it for myself. You can build much larger scale applications in Flex than you can in Flash and in Flex they are 20 times easier to maintain and change ongoing. Team development is also enhances with Flex. As apps are mostly ASCII text, Flex is easy to work with in version control. Take the leap and learn Flex. It is one of the best things you can do long term within the Flash Platform. You will loath learning a new toolset at first but soon you will be writing application faster than before and with less hassle. Plus as you know Flash, you can extend Flex with it! I though for a while that Flex was going to automate me out of a job. The reality is that once you know it, the project scope in Flex is much larger. I am working on better projects and earning a good bit having learned Flex. My 2 Cents, Theodore Patrick -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 0.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 10/21/2005 ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Why Flex?
Thanks! I'm actually excited about jumping in now. It's making me wonder if some of the larger Flash apps I'm maintaining now wouldn't benefit from a port to Flex. I'll have to look into the server licensing to see if it makes sense for the projects I have in mind. I guess my next step is going through as many tutorials and sample apps as I can find. JOR Theodore E Patrick wrote: My question for the Flex people is this, what does Flex bring to the table that I can not already do with 04 Pro (not counting the new AS 3.0)? Allot! 1. There are tons of details in building apps in Flash 2004 Pro that just get removed when using Flex. All the small painful lessons that you needed to know disappear as they are built into the Flex Framework. This allows you to focus on the actual application you are building. 2. Better components and more of them. Containers, VBox, Repeaters, oh my! 3. Larger applications. Building very large scale applications in Flex is very feasible where it was hard to do this with Flash 2004 Pro. You can reuse blocks of MXML in Flex as a component. 4. MXML generates AS Classes. MXML is a code generator, it takes a simple XML hierarchy and generates an AS class representing your app just before compilation. As MXML is translated before compilation, tags can provide embedding of graphics, component generation, and UI generation that is very exact and detailed. In Flash the hierarchy of an application is hidden from the developer, where in Flex the hierarchy is directly what is added into the MXML XML tree. Flex is right aligned. I felt the same thing about Flex 10 months ago. It took being dropped into a Flex project to see it for myself. You can build much larger scale applications in Flex than you can in Flash and in Flex they are 20 times easier to maintain and change ongoing. Team development is also enhances with Flex. As apps are mostly ASCII text, Flex is easy to work with in version control. Take the leap and learn Flex. It is one of the best things you can do long term within the Flash Platform. You will loath learning a new toolset at first but soon you will be writing application faster than before and with less hassle. Plus as you know Flash, you can extend Flex with it! I though for a while that Flex was going to automate me out of a job. The reality is that once you know it, the project scope in Flex is much larger. I am working on better projects and earning a good bit having learned Flex. My 2 Cents, Theodore Patrick ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Why Flex?
My question is why separate development environments... Could FlexBuilder2 not be rolled into the Flash IDE? I don't know enough about Flex to say for sure, but it would make the picture a lot clearer if mxml was just another way to work in the flash ide On Oct 28, 2005, at 1:58 AM, Theodore E Patrick wrote: My question for the Flex people is this, what does Flex bring to the table that I can not already do with 04 Pro (not counting the new AS 3.0)? Allot! 1. There are tons of details in building apps in Flash 2004 Pro that just get removed when using Flex. All the small painful lessons that you needed to know disappear as they are built into the Flex Framework. This allows you to focus on the actual application you are building. 2. Better components and more of them. Containers, VBox, Repeaters, oh my! 3. Larger applications. Building very large scale applications in Flex is very feasible where it was hard to do this with Flash 2004 Pro. You can reuse blocks of MXML in Flex as a component. 4. MXML generates AS Classes. MXML is a code generator, it takes a simple XML hierarchy and generates an AS class representing your app just before compilation. As MXML is translated before compilation, tags can provide embedding of graphics, component generation, and UI generation that is very exact and detailed. In Flash the hierarchy of an application is hidden from the developer, where in Flex the hierarchy is directly what is added into the MXML XML tree. Flex is right aligned. I felt the same thing about Flex 10 months ago. It took being dropped into a Flex project to see it for myself. You can build much larger scale applications in Flex than you can in Flash and in Flex they are 20 times easier to maintain and change ongoing. Team development is also enhances with Flex. As apps are mostly ASCII text, Flex is easy to work with in version control. Take the leap and learn Flex. It is one of the best things you can do long term within the Flash Platform. You will loath learning a new toolset at first but soon you will be writing application faster than before and with less hassle. Plus as you know Flash, you can extend Flex with it! I though for a while that Flex was going to automate me out of a job. The reality is that once you know it, the project scope in Flex is much larger. I am working on better projects and earning a good bit having learned Flex. My 2 Cents, Theodore Patrick -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 0.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 10/21/2005 ___ 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
Re: [Flashcoders] Why Flex?
I was saying the same type of stuff...a few days of playing with the flex alpha has blown me away. I really couldn't grasp it from what everyone was talking about, after running through the few quick start tutorials I could plainly see how much time was being wasted building apps in flash (or maybe it's how much time is saved by using flex). just download the alpha and play with it, you'll see. On 10/27/05, James O'Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks! I'm actually excited about jumping in now. > > It's making me wonder if some of the larger Flash apps I'm maintaining > now wouldn't benefit from a port to Flex. I'll have to look into the > server licensing to see if it makes sense for the projects I have in mind. > > I guess my next step is going through as many tutorials and sample apps > as I can find. > > > JOR > > > > Theodore E Patrick wrote: > >>My question for the Flex people is this, what does Flex bring to the > >>table that I can not already do with 04 Pro (not counting the new AS 3.0)? > > > > > > Allot! > > > > 1. There are tons of details in building apps in Flash 2004 Pro that just > > get removed when using Flex. All the small painful lessons that you needed > > to know disappear as they are built into the Flex Framework. This allows you > > to focus on the actual application you are building. > > > > 2. Better components and more of them. Containers, VBox, Repeaters, oh my! > > > > 3. Larger applications. Building very large scale applications in Flex is > > very feasible where it was hard to do this with Flash 2004 Pro. You can > > reuse blocks of MXML in Flex as a component. > > > > 4. MXML generates AS Classes. MXML is a code generator, it takes a simple > > XML hierarchy and generates an AS class representing your app just before > > compilation. As MXML is translated before compilation, tags can provide > > embedding of graphics, component generation, and UI generation that is very > > exact and detailed. In Flash the hierarchy of an application is hidden from > > the developer, where in Flex the hierarchy is directly what is added into > > the MXML XML tree. Flex is right aligned. > > > > I felt the same thing about Flex 10 months ago. It took being dropped into a > > Flex project to see it for myself. You can build much larger scale > > applications in Flex than you can in Flash and in Flex they are 20 times > > easier to maintain and change ongoing. Team development is also enhances > > with Flex. As apps are mostly ASCII text, Flex is easy to work with in > > version control. > > > > Take the leap and learn Flex. It is one of the best things you can do long > > term within the Flash Platform. You will loath learning a new toolset at > > first but soon you will be writing application faster than before and with > > less hassle. Plus as you know Flash, you can extend Flex with it! > > > > I though for a while that Flex was going to automate me out of a job. The > > reality is that once you know it, the project scope in Flex is much larger. > > I am working on better projects and earning a good bit having learned Flex. > > > > My 2 Cents, > > > > Theodore Patrick > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > 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
Re: [Flashcoders] Why Flex?
One of the downsides of Flash (7 and 8) regarding components is that its not
easy to change the look and feel, not to mention
skinning, which is a pain.
With Flex 2 this has become soo easy.
Everything (or almost) can be done through CSS (internal and external),
including embedding assets (jpg, gif, png, swf, swf library
symbols).
Embedded assets can be used as skins for components, like Buttons for instance.
Here's an example, where I have a ToggleButtonBar containing a few buttons
(these are standard Flex 2 components).
Each button has the same look and feel, defined by a CSS style.
.toggleButton {
upSkin: Embed("assets/TabButton.swf#up_skin");
selectedUpSkin: Embed("assets/TabButton.swf#up_skin_selected");
overSkin: Embed("assets/TabButton.swf#over_skin");
selectedOverSkin: Embed("assets/TabButton.swf#over_skin_selected");
downSkin: Embed("assets/TabButton.swf#down_skin");
selectedDownSkin: Embed("assets/TabButton.swf#down_skin_selected");
borderStyle: none;
/* hide the default focus rectangle*/
focusThickness: 0;
}
Doing something similar in Flash requires one to first create a custom
component (no ToggleButtonBar in Flash) which would probably
take a day or 2 to get it right.
This is just *one* aspect of Flex 2. There's lots more.
On top of it all, if you know Flash/XML/CSS, there's hardly any learning curve.
regards,
Muzak
- Original Message -
From: "Theodore E Patrick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Flashcoders mailing list'"
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 7:58 AM
Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Why Flex?
>> My question for the Flex people is this, what does Flex bring to the
>> table that I can not already do with 04 Pro (not counting the new AS 3.0)?
>
> Allot!
>
> 1. There are tons of details in building apps in Flash 2004 Pro that just
> get removed when using Flex. All the small painful lessons that you needed
> to know disappear as they are built into the Flex Framework. This allows you
> to focus on the actual application you are building.
>
> 2. Better components and more of them. Containers, VBox, Repeaters, oh my!
>
> 3. Larger applications. Building very large scale applications in Flex is
> very feasible where it was hard to do this with Flash 2004 Pro. You can
> reuse blocks of MXML in Flex as a component.
>
> 4. MXML generates AS Classes. MXML is a code generator, it takes a simple
> XML hierarchy and generates an AS class representing your app just before
> compilation. As MXML is translated before compilation, tags can provide
> embedding of graphics, component generation, and UI generation that is very
> exact and detailed. In Flash the hierarchy of an application is hidden from
> the developer, where in Flex the hierarchy is directly what is added into
> the MXML XML tree. Flex is right aligned.
>
> I felt the same thing about Flex 10 months ago. It took being dropped into a
> Flex project to see it for myself. You can build much larger scale
> applications in Flex than you can in Flash and in Flex they are 20 times
> easier to maintain and change ongoing. Team development is also enhances
> with Flex. As apps are mostly ASCII text, Flex is easy to work with in
> version control.
>
> Take the leap and learn Flex. It is one of the best things you can do long
> term within the Flash Platform. You will loath learning a new toolset at
> first but soon you will be writing application faster than before and with
> less hassle. Plus as you know Flash, you can extend Flex with it!
>
> I though for a while that Flex was going to automate me out of a job. The
> reality is that once you know it, the project scope in Flex is much larger.
> I am working on better projects and earning a good bit having learned Flex.
>
> My 2 Cents,
>
> Theodore Patrick
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Why Flex?
MXML looks a lot like the VTML language MM used to extend Homesite. I
wrote an ASP.Net add-on suite for Homesite using VTML and that wasn't so
bad. MXML looks pretty similar.
JOR
___
=== James O'Reilly
===
=== SynergyMedia, Inc.
=== www.synergymedia.net
Muzak wrote:
One of the downsides of Flash (7 and 8) regarding components is that its not easy to change the look and feel, not to mention
skinning, which is a pain.
With Flex 2 this has become soo easy.
Everything (or almost) can be done through CSS (internal and external), including embedding assets (jpg, gif, png, swf, swf library
symbols).
Embedded assets can be used as skins for components, like Buttons for instance.
Here's an example, where I have a ToggleButtonBar containing a few buttons
(these are standard Flex 2 components).
Each button has the same look and feel, defined by a CSS style.
.toggleButton {
upSkin: Embed("assets/TabButton.swf#up_skin");
selectedUpSkin: Embed("assets/TabButton.swf#up_skin_selected");
overSkin: Embed("assets/TabButton.swf#over_skin");
selectedOverSkin: Embed("assets/TabButton.swf#over_skin_selected");
downSkin: Embed("assets/TabButton.swf#down_skin");
selectedDownSkin: Embed("assets/TabButton.swf#down_skin_selected");
borderStyle: none;
/* hide the default focus rectangle*/
focusThickness: 0;
}
Doing something similar in Flash requires one to first create a custom component (no ToggleButtonBar in Flash) which would probably
take a day or 2 to get it right.
This is just *one* aspect of Flex 2. There's lots more.
On top of it all, if you know Flash/XML/CSS, there's hardly any learning curve.
regards,
Muzak
- Original Message -
From: "Theodore E Patrick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Flashcoders mailing list'"
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 7:58 AM
Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Why Flex?
My question for the Flex people is this, what does Flex bring to the
table that I can not already do with 04 Pro (not counting the new AS 3.0)?
Allot!
1. There are tons of details in building apps in Flash 2004 Pro that just
get removed when using Flex. All the small painful lessons that you needed
to know disappear as they are built into the Flex Framework. This allows you
to focus on the actual application you are building.
2. Better components and more of them. Containers, VBox, Repeaters, oh my!
3. Larger applications. Building very large scale applications in Flex is
very feasible where it was hard to do this with Flash 2004 Pro. You can
reuse blocks of MXML in Flex as a component.
4. MXML generates AS Classes. MXML is a code generator, it takes a simple
XML hierarchy and generates an AS class representing your app just before
compilation. As MXML is translated before compilation, tags can provide
embedding of graphics, component generation, and UI generation that is very
exact and detailed. In Flash the hierarchy of an application is hidden from
the developer, where in Flex the hierarchy is directly what is added into
the MXML XML tree. Flex is right aligned.
I felt the same thing about Flex 10 months ago. It took being dropped into a
Flex project to see it for myself. You can build much larger scale
applications in Flex than you can in Flash and in Flex they are 20 times
easier to maintain and change ongoing. Team development is also enhances
with Flex. As apps are mostly ASCII text, Flex is easy to work with in
version control.
Take the leap and learn Flex. It is one of the best things you can do long
term within the Flash Platform. You will loath learning a new toolset at
first but soon you will be writing application faster than before and with
less hassle. Plus as you know Flash, you can extend Flex with it!
I though for a while that Flex was going to automate me out of a job. The
reality is that once you know it, the project scope in Flex is much larger.
I am working on better projects and earning a good bit having learned Flex.
My 2 Cents,
Theodore Patrick
___
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
RE: [Flashcoders] Why Flex?
The particulars of MXML require a specialized editor that understands the model. I am not sure that Flash would be the right place for this. As we saw with Forms & Screens sometimes new paradigms in older tools just do not work. I do believe there needs to be a dramatically better UI for editing MXML and Flex Builder 2 is looking to be a great addition. There is some middle ground that Flex Builder 2 is missing in terms of exact layout. It would be nice to provide a nestable UI to provide exact positioning in each tag level so users could drill into the layout seeing only that level. The limitation with Flex Builder is more due to having to render an entire view from root down vs just showing a layout of a single node downward. Ideally the 'designers' in Flex 2 could only render children of a selected node. This would dramatically change the usefulness of the toolset for graphical layout. There needs to be much better graphical tools for building Flex application. Although you can extend with Flash, extendibility is a bit disjointed. My 2 cents, Ted ;) > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:flashcoders- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Bedar > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:20 AM > To: Flashcoders mailing list > Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Why Flex? > > My question is why separate development environments... Could > FlexBuilder2 not be rolled into the Flash IDE? I don't know enough > about Flex to say for sure, but it would make the picture a lot > clearer if mxml was just another way to work in the flash ide > > > On Oct 28, 2005, at 1:58 AM, Theodore E Patrick wrote: > > >> My question for the Flex people is this, what does Flex bring to the > >> table that I can not already do with 04 Pro (not counting the new > >> AS 3.0)? > >> > > > > Allot! > > > > 1. There are tons of details in building apps in Flash 2004 Pro > > that just > > get removed when using Flex. All the small painful lessons that you > > needed > > to know disappear as they are built into the Flex Framework. This > > allows you > > to focus on the actual application you are building. > > > > 2. Better components and more of them. Containers, VBox, Repeaters, > > oh my! > > > > 3. Larger applications. Building very large scale applications in > > Flex is > > very feasible where it was hard to do this with Flash 2004 Pro. You > > can > > reuse blocks of MXML in Flex as a component. > > > > 4. MXML generates AS Classes. MXML is a code generator, it takes a > > simple > > XML hierarchy and generates an AS class representing your app just > > before > > compilation. As MXML is translated before compilation, tags can > > provide > > embedding of graphics, component generation, and UI generation that > > is very > > exact and detailed. In Flash the hierarchy of an application is > > hidden from > > the developer, where in Flex the hierarchy is directly what is > > added into > > the MXML XML tree. Flex is right aligned. > > > > I felt the same thing about Flex 10 months ago. It took being > > dropped into a > > Flex project to see it for myself. You can build much larger scale > > applications in Flex than you can in Flash and in Flex they are 20 > > times > > easier to maintain and change ongoing. Team development is also > > enhances > > with Flex. As apps are mostly ASCII text, Flex is easy to work with in > > version control. > > > > Take the leap and learn Flex. It is one of the best things you can > > do long > > term within the Flash Platform. You will loath learning a new > > toolset at > > first but soon you will be writing application faster than before > > and with > > less hassle. Plus as you know Flash, you can extend Flex with it! > > > > I though for a while that Flex was going to automate me out of a > > job. The > > reality is that once you know it, the project scope in Flex is much > > larger. > > I am working on better projects and earning a good bit having > > learned Flex. > > > > My 2 Cents, > > > > Theodore Patrick > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > Version: 0.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: > > 10/21/2005 > > > > > > ___ > > Flashcoders mailing list > > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > > > _
RE: [Flashcoders] Why Flex?
Also, I hadn't heard this mentioned yet, but programming in Flex's XML (mxml) is very similar to the way you do it in ColdFusion - with tags and attributes. So if you are familiar with ColdFusion, Flex is easy to transition to. Jason Merrill | E-Learning Solutions | icfconsulting.com >>-Original Message- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:flashcoders- >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Theodore E Patrick >>Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 6:09 AM >>To: 'Flashcoders mailing list' >>Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Why Flex? >> >>The particulars of MXML require a specialized editor that understands the >>model. I am not sure that Flash would be the right place for this. As we saw >>with Forms & Screens sometimes new paradigms in older tools just do not >>work. >> >>I do believe there needs to be a dramatically better UI for editing MXML and >>Flex Builder 2 is looking to be a great addition. There is some middle >>ground that Flex Builder 2 is missing in terms of exact layout. It would be >>nice to provide a nestable UI to provide exact positioning in each tag level >>so users could drill into the layout seeing only that level. The limitation >>with Flex Builder is more due to having to render an entire view from root >>down vs just showing a layout of a single node downward. Ideally the >>'designers' in Flex 2 could only render children of a selected node. This >>would dramatically change the usefulness of the toolset for graphical >>layout. >> >>There needs to be much better graphical tools for building Flex application. >>Although you can extend with Flash, extendibility is a bit disjointed. >> >>My 2 cents, >> >>Ted ;) >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:flashcoders- >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Bedar >>> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:20 AM >>> To: Flashcoders mailing list >>> Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Why Flex? >>> >>> My question is why separate development environments... Could >>> FlexBuilder2 not be rolled into the Flash IDE? I don't know enough >>> about Flex to say for sure, but it would make the picture a lot >>> clearer if mxml was just another way to work in the flash ide >>> >>> >>> On Oct 28, 2005, at 1:58 AM, Theodore E Patrick wrote: >>> >>> >> My question for the Flex people is this, what does Flex bring to the >>> >> table that I can not already do with 04 Pro (not counting the new >>> >> AS 3.0)? >>> >> >>> > >>> > Allot! >>> > >>> > 1. There are tons of details in building apps in Flash 2004 Pro >>> > that just >>> > get removed when using Flex. All the small painful lessons that you >>> > needed >>> > to know disappear as they are built into the Flex Framework. This >>> > allows you >>> > to focus on the actual application you are building. >>> > >>> > 2. Better components and more of them. Containers, VBox, Repeaters, >>> > oh my! >>> > >>> > 3. Larger applications. Building very large scale applications in >>> > Flex is >>> > very feasible where it was hard to do this with Flash 2004 Pro. You >>> > can >>> > reuse blocks of MXML in Flex as a component. >>> > >>> > 4. MXML generates AS Classes. MXML is a code generator, it takes a >>> > simple >>> > XML hierarchy and generates an AS class representing your app just >>> > before >>> > compilation. As MXML is translated before compilation, tags can >>> > provide >>> > embedding of graphics, component generation, and UI generation that >>> > is very >>> > exact and detailed. In Flash the hierarchy of an application is >>> > hidden from >>> > the developer, where in Flex the hierarchy is directly what is >>> > added into >>> > the MXML XML tree. Flex is right aligned. >>> > >>> > I felt the same thing about Flex 10 months ago. It took being >>> > dropped into a >>> > Flex project to see it for myself. You can build much larger scale >>> > applications in Flex than you can in Flash and in Flex they are 20 >>> > times >>> > easier to maintain and change ongoing. Team development is also >>> > enhances >>> > with Flex. As apps are mostly ASCII tex
Re: [Flashcoders] Why Flex?
One of the downsides of Flash (7 and 8) regarding components is that its not easy to change the look and feel, not to mention skinning, which is a pain. With Flex 2 this has become soo easy. Everything (or almost) can be done through CSS (internal and external), including embedding assets (jpg, gif, png, swf, swf library symbols). Embedded assets can be used as skins for components, like Buttons for instance. One might ask, however, why, instead of creating a whole new development platform, they didn't just release better components that are easier to skin, better CSS support, better html support, and just make Flash a whole lot more capable and eay to develop for. Sure, skinning is easy in Flex, but why not make skinning components easy in Flash, rather than making "skinning is easier in Flex" a marketing campaign for Flex? ryanm ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Why Flex?
"One might ask, however, why, " Hmmm, welll let's see. Could it be $$$? - Original Message - From: "ryanm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Flashcoders mailing list" Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 12:16 PM Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Why Flex? > > One of the downsides of Flash (7 and 8) regarding components is that its > > not easy to change the look and feel, not to mention skinning, which is a > > pain. > > With Flex 2 this has become soo easy. > > Everything (or almost) can be done through CSS (internal and external), > > including embedding assets (jpg, gif, png, swf, swf library symbols). > > Embedded assets can be used as skins for components, like Buttons for > > instance. > > > One might ask, however, why, instead of creating a whole new development > platform, they didn't just release better components that are easier to > skin, better CSS support, better html support, and just make Flash a whole > lot more capable and eay to develop for. Sure, skinning is easy in Flex, but > why not make skinning components easy in Flash, rather than making "skinning > is easier in Flex" a marketing campaign for Flex? > > ryanm > > ___ > 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
Re: [Flashcoders] Why Flex?
>From my point of view, it's because there are a huge number of programmers out there who simply wouldn't look at Flash as a serious development option if they didn't have something like Flex Builder and Flex. Flash is awesome for graphics manipulation and all sorts of very cool things, but most enterprise business software doesn't have that as the primary goal. The primary goal there is to fit business requirements. If you can take advantage of all the cool stuff in Flash that's great, but it's a secondary priority. I've been working with Flex doing development, training and consulting for about a year now and I can tell you that there are an awful lot of people who are very glad that Flex is around. Flex 1.5 was aimed at a different market than what Flash is. Now that Flex 2 pricing has been announced, a lot more people will be looking at it as an option. I don't know how many people will move from Flash to Flex, but I know a lot who will be moving from Java or other languages to Flex. my 2 cents Spike On 10/28/05, Keith L. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "One might ask, however, why, " Hmmm, welll let's see. Could it be $$$? > > > - Original Message - > From: "ryanm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Flashcoders mailing list" > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 12:16 PM > Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Why Flex? > > > > > One of the downsides of Flash (7 and 8) regarding components is that > its > > > not easy to change the look and feel, not to mention skinning, which > is > a > > > pain. > > > With Flex 2 this has become soo easy. > > > Everything (or almost) can be done through CSS (internal and > external), > > > including embedding assets (jpg, gif, png, swf, swf library symbols). > > > Embedded assets can be used as skins for components, like Buttons for > > > instance. > > > > > One might ask, however, why, instead of creating a whole new > development > > platform, they didn't just release better components that are easier to > > skin, better CSS support, better html support, and just make Flash a > whole > > lot more capable and eay to develop for. Sure, skinning is easy in Flex, > but > > why not make skinning components easy in Flash, rather than making > "skinning > > is easier in Flex" a marketing campaign for Flex? > > > > ryanm > > > > ___ > > 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 > -- Stephen Milligan Do you do the Badger? http://www.yellowbadger.com Do you cfeclipse? http://www.cfeclipse.org ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Why Flex?
right on. that's what i'm talking about. flash was about 80%-90% there for developers and then they forked the sucker. are they focus on developers in the next version of flash authoring since 8 was a designer oriented release? i like flex and where it can be used but i'd like to see the features in flex syncronized in/with flash authoring. that would be killer. ryanm wrote: One might ask, however, why, instead of creating a whole new development platform, they didn't just release better components that are easier to skin, better CSS support, better html support, and just make Flash a whole lot more capable and eay to develop for. Sure, skinning is easy in Flex, but why not make skinning components easy in Flash, rather than making "skinning is easier in Flex" a marketing campaign for Flex? ryanm ___ 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
Re: [Flashcoders] Why Flex?
*snip* i like flex and where it can be used but i'd like to see the features in flex syncronized in/with flash authoring. that would be killer. *snip* I don't see any reason why that wouldn't be good for everybody. Personally I have always found Flash authoring a very frustrating tool to work with, but I'm a very code centric type of person. The only time I want to see what my app looks like is when I test it. I find any time I use a graphical tool to build apps I end up sitting there for far too long trying to debug something that was created visually, which I don't completely understand, and which I probably can't control down to the finest detail. Flex 1.5 and Flex Builder 2 give me the option of using that as my workflow. I'm not saying Flash authoring isn't a good tool. It obviously is for a very large number of people, but without Flex and other options for building apps in a code centric way I doubt if I would be working with flash at all. It's all about choice :-) Spike On 10/28/05, Judah Frangipane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > right on. that's what i'm talking about. flash was about 80%-90% there > for developers and then they forked the sucker. are they focus on > developers in the next version of flash authoring since 8 was a designer > oriented release? i like flex and where it can be used but i'd like to > see the features in flex syncronized in/with flash authoring. that would > be killer. > > ryanm wrote: > > > One might ask, however, why, instead of creating a whole new > > development platform, they didn't just release better components that > > are easier to skin, better CSS support, better html support, and just > > make Flash a whole lot more capable and eay to develop for. Sure, > > skinning is easy in Flex, but why not make skinning components easy in > > Flash, rather than making "skinning is easier in Flex" a marketing > > campaign for Flex? > > > > ryanm > > ___ > > 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 > -- Stephen Milligan Do you do the Badger? http://www.yellowbadger.com Do you cfeclipse? http://www.cfeclipse.org ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Why Flex?
I think that flex is a developer friendly environment and flash is not. By that I mean, for one thing, that flex is built around the eclipse environment, which is the gold standard for developers. Macromedia wanted to grow the community. That meant designing a tool that would appeal to rank and file developers. That meant making a new more programmer friendly (like eclipse or MS Visual Studio) environment. I dont think you can make the flash IDE look enough like a programmer friendly environment to get your typical java or MS developer to like it. I code in Java and Flash and for me, Flex is heaven. I dont think they were 80% or 90% there as a programmer friendly development tool. I think if you become familiar with the kinds of tools java and c# developers use, you wouldnt say that. They are miles apart. That said, I do think that some of the things in flex can/should migrate to the flash IDE. I think flex builder and mxml can be done in a designer friendly way. Just look at Dreamweaver. But, while Macromedia is a big company, they could not develop two totally different metaphors at the same time. Flex took a lot of work and a long time to get right. Once they are done (which is still 6 or so months away) I suspect some of the things will end up in the Flash IDE. But it is not reasonable to expect they could do all this at once. What they have done so far is amazing work. Regards Hank On 10/28/05, Judah Frangipane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > right on. that's what i'm talking about. flash was about 80%-90% there > for developers and then they forked the sucker. are they focus on > developers in the next version of flash authoring since 8 was a designer > oriented release? i like flex and where it can be used but i'd like to > see the features in flex syncronized in/with flash authoring. that would > be killer. > > ryanm wrote: > > >One might ask, however, why, instead of creating a whole new > > development platform, they didn't just release better components that > > are easier to skin, better CSS support, better html support, and just > > make Flash a whole lot more capable and eay to develop for. Sure, > > skinning is easy in Flex, but why not make skinning components easy in > > Flash, rather than making "skinning is easier in Flex" a marketing > > campaign for Flex? > > > > ryanm > > ___ > > 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 > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Why Flex?
I guess we'll have to wait and see what they come up with in F9. And if I have to guess some more, I think the initial intention was to have this in F8 (or part of it). Remember that screenshot of the Flash 8 IDE that had 'ActionScript 3' in it somewhere? Someone from MM (Mike Chambers??) then said it was an error in the (beta) IDE. Somewhere along the line they decided to not go that route and wait for F9 to implement AS3 stuff. Anyways, I was kinda disappointed with F8, but Flex 2 makes it all good again (and then some more).. Muzak - Original Message - From: "ryanm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Flashcoders mailing list" Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 7:16 PM Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Why Flex? >One might ask, however, why, instead of creating a whole new development > platform, they didn't just release better components > that are easier to skin, better CSS support, better html support, and just > make Flash a whole lot more capable and eay to develop > for. Sure, skinning is easy in Flex, but why not make skinning components > easy in Flash, rather than making "skinning is easier in > Flex" a marketing campaign for Flex? > > ryanm ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] Why Flex?
Hi, Partly right :) The plan has always been to support AS3 in both Flash authoring and Flex and that is still true. At one point we were looking stretching to get AS3 in Flash Player 8 and Flash Professional 8, but we realized that was a *bad* idea...we just couldn't do it with the quality and results we wanted. So we still are planning on having AS3 in both products, but the sync-up comes with the next major release. That said, we will be working to get Flash authoring with AS3 in public alpha or beta on the labs site so folks can give us feedback. In general, we did step back a while ago and realized that we were not meeting our customers needs (and future customer needs) by trying to be "all things to all people" in a single tool. While we did add much great "developer oriented" functionality to Flash authoring, we felt from talking to customers that in many cases designers felt confused or even ignored and yet programmers still didn't feel we were meeting their needs. We talked with customers and found more folks wanted us to (a) make a great tool and model that was really designed for designers/videographers/multimedia professionals and (b) also a great tool and model that was really designed for programmers, and *most importantly* (c) make it so that teams could work together and bring together designers and developers to build great experiences. We are not going to ignore developers in Flash authoring--you'll see continued improvements across the functionality in Flash authoring in future releases, but you will see us continuing to have a different focus across Flex and Flash authoring and increasingly over releases improving the ability for them to work together. HTH, David Macromedia > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Muzak > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 5:51 PM > To: Flashcoders mailing list > Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Why Flex? > > I guess we'll have to wait and see what they come up with in F9. > > And if I have to guess some more, I think the initial > intention was to have this in F8 (or part of it). > Remember that screenshot of the Flash 8 IDE that had > 'ActionScript 3' in it somewhere? > Someone from MM (Mike Chambers??) then said it was an error > in the (beta) IDE. > > Somewhere along the line they decided to not go that route > and wait for F9 to implement AS3 stuff. > > Anyways, I was kinda disappointed with F8, but Flex 2 makes > it all good again (and then some more).. > > Muzak ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
