Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex
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.)
Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex
Excelent idea Alex, thanks for sharing. Juan Carlos Perez On Aug 17, 2014, at 2:00, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com [flexcoders] flexcoders@yahoogroups.com wrote: Well, I don't know if Flash will return to being the solution for UI design. With all of the various mobile browsers, I don't know if Flash will be able to run in all of them. But Flex, on the other hand, could. That's what I'm trying to make happen with FlexJS. FlexJS won't control every pixel like you could in Flash (at least, certainly not early versions), but it should provide the other benefits that folks have found missing, mainly in terms of developer productivity. Yes, Flex isn't as popular as it was before Adobe donated it to Apache. Adobe was spending serious money on getting folks to use Flex. But every day, some other product or idea goes viral without million-dollar marketing schemes. So, if you like Flex, take a look at FlexJS and tell us on the Apache Flex dev list (d...@flex.apache.org) what it needs before you'll start recommending it to others such that it can go viral. IOW, you have to do your own marketing if you want to see more Flex jobs, and you have to help shape Flex and/or FlexJS into something worth marketing. No big company is going to do that for you. FlexJS isn't out to compete against HTML5. In fact, it is simply out to leverage it. As I've been working on FlexJS and talking to Flex folks who are now developing in some JS framework, it is becoming clear to me that any application developer using any framework is really just attaching components together. There is a longer version of what I'm about to write on the Apache Flex LinkedIn discussion group, but basically, the problem with JS is that you can attach anything to anything. Newer languages (TypeScript, DART) have constructs to try to catch those mistakes. ActionScript can do an even better job, especially for really big apps. And MXML gives you a schematic of your components. These days, I'm hoping to find folks who can help those of us working on FlexJS prove that AS and MXML can make you more proficient at attaching nearly any JS framework's components together. Then someday, it won't matter what JS framework your client wants to use, you'll use MXML and ActionScript to assemble that JS framework's components into an application and make fewer mistakes along the way. But that someday will come sooner if folks can contribute their time and energy to the project. If you can help out, send an email to d...@flex.apache.org. -Alex From: danielpr...@yahoo.com [flexcoders] flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, August 16, 2014 8:39 AM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex The original authors must be going nuts, in deep depression at least. They climbed mount everest to the pinnacle of human interface design and did it in a universally accessible way. At the bottom line if you can't mathematically relate every single pixel on the screen to every other one, over time, you are by definition inferior to flash. While I am currently working in Php/Mysql/ with Ajax on top due to the nature of the project (absolute universal access), I think there is still hope. More are taking flash to the browser native. Very smart move. If the standards are there it will in time inevitably dominate. To save face it will probably be called some great new tech called bonzoshow or something :) Everybody literally freaked out at jobs' dying statement, jumped on the it won't run mobile and like a herd of lemmings everybody dove for the exits. Well mobile was si! ngle core then its quad and more now. Flash was and will be again I think a universal solution to absolutely superior user interface design. Pixel by Pixel over time. A growing morphing button is a single mathematics equation, not an unpredictable herd of objects clattering around in an approximation.
[flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex
The only thing that AS3 and Javascript have in common is ECMAScript. It's quite tricky to create OOP javascript that is well organized by yourself. That's why we have all these external libraries (backbone, angular, etc...) that try and help. That's also why Flash is a plugin... Even though being a plugin is it's downfall... By being a plugin it doesn't have to play by the rules of the DOM which are different on every browser. It can release new versions that will apply to every browser. It's just unfortunate that the web was built in such a way that there is no better way. Unless you want to create an As3 tool that compiles down to Javascript. Unless you can get all the browser makers to agree on one new language that would make the javascript situation better. If you want to build something in Javascript you are mainly relying on the community aka Github. Which isn't bad, but it doesn't guarantee you a bug free situation (not that Flex does, but at least you know that it's a production release). Most of your projects will import tons of libraries just to get the initial functionality you need. Some may import double functionality. For example.. You might import bootstrap's javascript... Which has a crappy autocomplete built in to version 2 but not version 3. But you shouldn't use it because it's poorly written. Which you wouldn't know unless you tried it out.. then might have found this article. http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2013/12/9/stop-being-clever/ ... Anywho... Of course you can now do mostly everything in Javascript that you used to do in Flash (except copy to the clipboard). The big difference is that you'll wind up doing a lot more research to find out how to do X. Doing the research is overwhelming and you'll often have to try out a lot of untested stuff. Making things work often comes with caveats. There are full fledged flex-like solutions for Javascript but they cost ridiculous amounts of money (per month!)... That's just depressing.
[flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex
Hi Guyz, Thanks for your reply. Your suggestions are indeed vital. At least all the flex developers should know where they stand in the current competitive market. I think it's time that flex can take advantage of the frustration growing around Html5/JS. Flex is a really cool tool to develop RIAs and apps. Hope FlexJS will bring good news for Flex developers. Thanks a lot guyz. Regards, Jameel
Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex
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.)
Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex
Hi all. Try Wakanda JS and be happy forgot flash/flex and etc. It's Ann All-on-one solution: http server, NoSql database, JS framawork for frontend and backend and have an amazing RAD tool for HTML5 UI design an much more... And it's extremely well documented anos have lotes of videos 4 free Ser in: http://www.wakanda.org Em 18/08/2014 10:50, danielpr...@yahoo.com [flexcoders] flexcoders@yahoogroups.com escreveu: 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.)
Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex
Think the person was simply referring to the vocabulary and syntax, since they're both based on the ECMA standards. Not sure it deserved an ad hominem attack. It's a pretty accurate statement that someone who knows ActionScript won't be baffled by JS. On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:50 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.) -- John Hall jh...@cactusware.com http://www.cactusware.com
[flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex
Of course you can now do mostly everything in Javascript that you used to do in Flash Really ? Hows the RTMP networking going? Ever see the Fedex app?
[flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex
Oh My god, Jacob from the NCR project? I am humbled. But are you serious about the Javascript? Maybe if like you got a staff of 300,... Yea I am working in it, but its like stone implements after flash... are you serious? Heard from the Genius lately? Whats he up to? Did he get his three masted schooner yet ?
Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex
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.)
