Carlos, Let me explain a bit further. The clients have a Flex enterprise app that they love already. But they want a customer-facing interface for certain small things. So to write something in JavaScript for those parts is a pain when a simple output-to-JavaScript from an almost trivial flex app would be nice. Heck, having the option to present the user with a JS view if they don't have Flash, or the Flash view if they have Flash - would be even better!
-Adam On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Carlos Velasco < [email protected]> wrote: > Adam, the client you're talking about is the right client for Javascript... > When talking about flex, the scope changes. Flex is intended for > medium-high weight enterprise RIA developments and there is where > Javascript is a piece of rubbish (dirty and expensive to maintain). > > It is not a matter of venting, but of trying to separate both kinds of > clients as their needs are different and also belong to different markets. > > Instead, there have been lots of movements trying to raise JS out of its > "simple-buggy-dirty applications" development scope, which is what makes me > feel like WTF!!! > > > 2013/11/7 Adam Malejko <[email protected]> > > > Carlos, I'm not sure if your comment was directed at mine, or if you were > > just venting a bit, but when I said that I don't personally need it, I > > meant it. > > > > What my clients want a lot of the time is a simple site for customers to > > sign up, or do something fancy like their backend does, yet get it done > > quick and dirty. Fussing with consumers or other enterprises who don't > > necessarily have Flash even installed (yes, they exist) isn't something > we > > like to do. So, we often we will just write something in JavaScript that > > connects to our backend. I would rather have something somewhat connected > > to the backend app, written in the same language, but as it is, I can't > do > > that. Having the option to output a simple app / site in JavaScript is > > appealing in that regard. Letting a JavaScript/CSS guy mess with and > style > > up the output; even more appealing. > > > > -Adam > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Carlos Velasco < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I don't really know why people are so entusiast with the idea of > porting > > > FLEX to a "hell shit" (just my opinion) technology as Javascripy it is > > just > > > like throwing away HD smart TVs and making a party to welcome Black and > > > White TVs... > > > > > > Sorry for the offtopic, but really tired of viewing so many "Ooooohhh > > > Javascript is the future... " staff out there. > > > > > > > > > 2013/11/7 Adam Malejko <[email protected]> > > > > > > > Yeah, Shumway may or may not help; but I'm not holding my breath on > it. > > > > > > > > What will hopefully help Flex a bunch is the JS output that Alex is > > > working > > > > on. Can't wait! I don't personally need it, but I know a lot of > clients > > > > that do! > > > > > > > > ... and as soon as my boss lays off a bit, I hope to start at least > > > testing > > > > it a bit. > > > > > > > > -Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > This was discussed on dev@. Shumway may not help Flex at all. It > > > seems > > > > > more oriented to the rendering side of Flash, not the user > > interaction > > > > > side. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/6/13 8:11 PM, "Thiago Maia" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >What I understood seens they are trying to build an opensource > flash > > > > > >player to replace adobe flash player. That would be great for us > > flex > > > > > >developpers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.ghacks.net/2013/10/02/mozillas-flash-plugin-replacement-shumway > > > > > >-lands-firefox-nightly/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >--- > > > > > >This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! > Antivirus > > > > > >protection is active. > > > > > >http://www.avast.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
