Hi Olaf, things never will be as 20 years ago where people tries to search what's the technology that has all the things and is above its competitors. Today there's lots of platforms, devices, languages, frameworks and technologies and we only can try to target the things that the group of contributors we are can afford. I think people can choose React for its needs, others Royale, others go native... For example I choose Royale, because the cost to migrate to any other tech was significant and higher so even spending many hours improving Royale, this path for me was lighter than go to React or Angular. In the other hand there's an opportunity in the future that we can target WebAssembly or WebComponents more easily, and all of that will required work in Royale and in our applications that use it to target that. But that's ok. In the other hand going with the actual standard (React) of this year (maybe not the standard of the next year ;)), we are in the same problem that we had with Flex...rewrite all when next tech comes (probably WebAssembly).
So I hope some day in the future we can target WebAssembly and other platforms, but that will only happen if we get more people on board helping. For now current things on the plate are MX/Spark emulation, Jewel UI Set, continue improving compiler and framework and more things like routing, modules, communications (AMF,...)... I think as we get a good point for all of this (I think we're close but still need work) we can discuss more things to do, but for me that means more people that want to work on new things. El lun., 25 feb. 2019 a las 18:45, Alex Harui (<[email protected]>) escribió: > There have been past discussions on this topic. With more volunteers, we > would output the same MXML and AS to WebComponents and WebAssembly, and > potentially other targets. If you write directly to WebComponents and > WebAssembly, when some other popular target comes into existence you will > have to touch your code to target it. > > Frameworks provide abstractions that provide advantages and > disadvantages. There is no one perfect answer. > > HTH, > -Alex > > On 2/25/19, 7:44 AM, "Olaf Krueger" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > since a longer period of time I am struggling with me and the question: > > "Does it still makes sense to use whatever (huge) framework in order to > build data-driven enterprise (web) applications these days?" > > For me, the benefits of using a framework like Royale should be: > Independence, productivity and "multi-platform". > But what price do we have to pay for this? Will we ever harvest the > fruits > of dealing with those extra layers and abstractions in order to get a > future > proof framework? > Will there be any other important target than the web during the > upcoming > decade at all? > Does the usage of a framework really increase productivity when we > consider > the overall balance? > > On the other side, web technologies are evolving constantly: > WebComponents are growing, they can be used already, it's a reality! > WebAssembly is already a kind of non-UI-cross-platform coding in native > speed, you can use C++, C# and some more other languages already. > WebAssembly and WebComponents can be used together already. > That means that decoupled HTML/CSS components on the UI side could be > probably combined with using a typed language for the business logic. > AFAIK, the DOM manipulation performance from WebAssembly is not > perfect yet, > but we can expect that it will evolve. > > However, just the usage of WebComponents brings a lot of the > advantages that > we are used to having with Flex or Royale/asjs: > You can build reusable, decoupled components. WebComponents are using > its > own Shadow DOM and own CSS. > All that by using web standards. > There is already a significant amount of WebComponents available… and > it’s > growing [1]. > > WebAssembly and WebComponents could be probably used together with > Royale or > other frameworks, but the question to me is: > Doesn't these technologies already provide most of the things which > we'd > like to have as an application developer? > > You are so high-skilled guys here and I am really interested in your > opinion > on this! > > Thanks, > Olaf > > [1] > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwebcomponents.org&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5aff8c6f13344c4a96a408d69b381c1a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636867062628355863&sdata=R7Je%2FG7yEbgRpyLWyMcRtp9T0O%2Bjsgi5Ywm7ttvYFlQ%3D&reserved=0 > > > > -- > Sent from: > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5aff8c6f13344c4a96a408d69b381c1a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636867062628355863&sdata=rJSQNhXB8mni5HaXG6DYT6CG6UG3pop8%2Bg4dMlwbjLg%3D&reserved=0 > > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
