-adam
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 04:49 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]
