-Stace
_____
From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 12:49 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Flex again!
Keep in mind that that's a one-time cost. Same thing with Flash
authored
movies. If you use a single UI Component, you movie size jumps by 40 or
50K
instantly. But if you use a thousand UI components, you also only see a
40-50K jump because of reuse. So yes, 100K seems big for a sample app,
but
a "real" app won't be much larger, because it's going to heavily reuse
all
that code.
Cheers,
barneyb
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marlon Moyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 9:31 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Flex again!
>
> I've been doing some research into Flex recently and one of the things
> that has put me off of it is that it seems to not be a viable
> option for
> non-broadband users. From the swf's in my cache, it seems
> the smallest
> size is 100K and 150K isn't too uncommon for the sample apps on
> Macromedia.com. I know that some of my very involved DHTML apps that
> use common libraries may be getting close to that size, but at least
> with _javascript_, it can be cached. Maybe this is why is seems that
> Macromedia is targeting the big enterprise guys instead of the common
> developers.
>
>
>
> I was thinking that it would be nice if the next version of the flash
> player would have the base classes built in, but that would probably
> make the player download quite large.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Marlon Moyer, Sr. Internet Developer
>
> American Contractors Insurance Group
>
> phone: 972.687.9445
>
> fax: 972.687.0607
>
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> www.acig.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
