Im afraid it is Mac only
On 12/23/05, hank williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think its a mac app. > > Hank > > On 12/23/05, Merrill, Jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I downloaded the trial, but what's a .dmg file and how do I unpack it in > > Windows? Couldn't find any info on their site - and double-clicking the > > file gives me an error - unrecognized file type. > > > > Jason Merrill | E-Learning Solutions | icfconsulting.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:flashcoders- > > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Merrill, Jason > > >>Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 11:42 AM > > >>To: Flashcoders mailing list > > >>Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Faster code? > > >> > > >>Thanks. > > >> > > >>Jason Merrill | E-Learning Solutions | icfconsulting.com > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>>>-----Original Message----- > > >>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:flashcoders- > > >>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul BH > > >>>>Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 11:31 AM > > >>>>To: Flashcoders mailing list > > >>>>Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Faster code? > > >>>> > > >>>>this is the tool I meant - visDoc / ASDoc were these once the same? > > >>>>cant remember... Im having a slow day... > > >>>> > > >>>>http://www.visiblearea.com/visdoc/ > > >>>> > > >>>>On 12/23/05, Merrill, Jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>>> Where can I get ASDoc? Google seems pretty ignorant of it - at > > >>least as > > >>>>> a product or software tool. Or is it an internal-only product > > Adobe > > >>>>> uses? Or is it simply a Macromedia standardized HTML format for > > >>help > > >>>>> content? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Jason Merrill | E-Learning Solutions | icfconsulting.com > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> >>-----Original Message----- > > >>>>> >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>[mailto:flashcoders- > > >>>>> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JesterXL > > >>>>> >>Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 10:56 AM > > >>>>> >>To: Flashcoders mailing list > > >>>>> >>Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Faster code? > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >>Oh yeah definatly. Even though Natural Doc's syntax feels more > > >>>>> >>straightforward, ASDoc definately has the most beautiful output > > >>that > > >>>>> I've > > >>>>> >>seen to date. > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>>>> >>From: "Paul BH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>>>> >>To: "Flashcoders mailing list" > > <[email protected]> > > >>>>> >>Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 10:53 AM > > >>>>> >>Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Faster code? > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >>1) I agree, that's why back to my earlier thing, I rarely > > comment > > >>- > > >>>>> >>what ASDoc does do however is provide a way of displaying things > > >>like > > >>>>> >>your method signature in a friendly HTML like manner, with a > > handy > > >>>>> >>index down the side. When I do comment, it would be to explain > > >>some > > >>>>> >>hackery, or something that wasnt obvious - within a function, > > this > > >>>>> >>wouldnt get picked up, if it was something like a paramenter > > only > > >>>>> >>being in an allowable range, I would comment that in a way that > > >>ASDoc > > >>>>> >>picks up... > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >>2)Hehe if I couldnt do that, it would be nirvana-esque... I > > never > > >>said > > >>>>> >>that this document wouldnt change - the key thing here is to > > make > > >>sure > > >>>>> >>that the change is captured in one place and one place alone... > > ie > > >>- > > >>>>> >>when business changes the specification, this is reflected in my > > >>unit > > >>>>> >>tests (as they are one & the same document), and thus my test > > >>suite > > >>>>> >>know about it straight away... > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >>On 12/23/05, JesterXL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>>> >>> 1. ASDoc just generates comments from your code. If your > > code > > >>>>> comments > > >>>>> >>> aren't up to date, neither is your generated asdocs. > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>> 2. If you could coerce a client to sign a document saying that > > >>>>> business > > >>>>> >>> requirements never change... hell dude, I'm hiring you > > fulltime > > >>to > > >>>>> work > > >>>>> >>> for > > >>>>> >>> me! > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- > > >>>>> >>> From: "Paul BH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>>>> >>> To: "Flashcoders mailing list" > > >><[email protected]> > > >>>>> >>> Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 10:31 AM > > >>>>> >>> Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Faster code? > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>> I'm so glad I opened such a juicy can of worms just before > > >>Christmas > > >>>>> ;) > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>> I just want to throw one more thing into the mix before I > > >>dissappear > > >>>>> off > > >>>>> >>> to > > >>>>> >>> numb > > >>>>> >>> my family reunion with hefty doses of alcohol... > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>> So, now I think my comments before about, erm comments still > > >>stand. > > >>>>> I > > >>>>> >>> see comments differently to documentation, so I'll just add my > > >>>>> >>> tuppence to this and retire to eat drink & be merry... > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>> I think some (many)? people dont document because they cant be > > >>>>> arsed. > > >>>>> >>> Why is this the case? We'll, again, I think it comes down to > > >>>>> changing > > >>>>> >>> requirements, and the fact that I hate having the same > > >>information > > >>>>> in > > >>>>> >>> two places, as at some point one will get out of date... > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>> How to manage this, and at the same time make your code easy > > to > > >>>>> >>> understand? > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>> This is how we are approaching it / looking to approach it... > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>> 1) Documentation of individual methods within classes is done > > >>using > > >>>>> >>> ASDoc which gets triggered whenever a file gets checked into > > >>source > > >>>>> >>> control -- your documentataion is generated from your class > > >>file, > > >>>>> and > > >>>>> >>> is *always* up to date with your checked in class file... > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>> 2) We are looking into using a thing called FIT > > >>(http://fit.c2.com/) > > >>>>> >>> What this does is tie in business requirements with unit > > tests. > > >>The > > >>>>> >>> business (ie the client) basically write their specifications > > >>(or > > >>>>> are > > >>>>> >>> assisted with it) in a word document. wherever a table is > > >>>>> encountered, > > >>>>> >>> this is interpreted by FIT as a unit test, and the test > > builder > > >>>>> writes > > >>>>> >>> a fixture to accomodate that test... What this means is that > > you > > >>are > > >>>>> >>> documenting your business logic in one place (rather than both > > a > > >>>>> specs > > >>>>> >>> document and a slew of unit tests) > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>> For me, the underlying principle is this -- DONT REPEAT > > YOURSELF > > >>-- > > >>>>> >>> it'll save you a whole truckload of hassles down the road... > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>> Pxx > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>> On 12/23/05, Hans Wichman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>>> >>> > Just to those that are reading this thread and wondering if > > >>>>> writing neat > > >>>>> >>> > documented code for clients (and payed for by clients) is an > > >>>>> illusion, > > >>>>> >>> > my > > >>>>> >>> > 2 > > >>>>> >>> > cents: > > >>>>> >>> > > > >>>>> >>> > we've been working on a project (complete virtual learning > > >>city) > > >>>>> in > > >>>>> >>> > flash > > >>>>> >>> > in which the client didnt really know what he wanted up > > front, > > >>>>> which we > > >>>>> >>> > tackled using a usecase-development/prototyping approach. > > >>>>> >>> > The object oriented design was by large thought up up front, > > >>the > > >>>>> >>> > conversion > > >>>>> >>> > of this design to AS2.0 was done bit by bit, using unit > > >>testing > > >>>>> etc. All > > >>>>> >>> > the while the specs where changing and we made > > >>>>> this-phase/next-phase > > >>>>> >>> > choices and did a small impact analysis for most of them. > > >>>>> >>> > During implementation most of the code was being documented > > >>>>> already > > >>>>> >>> > (during > > >>>>> >>> > or upfront), not using obvious what-does-this-button-do > > >>comments, > > >>>>> but > > >>>>> >>> > WHY-does-this-button-do-what-it-does comments. The internals > > >>>>> workings > > >>>>> >>> > may > > >>>>> >>> > change, but why-it-does-what-it-does usually doesnt. The > > >>client > > >>>>> now > > >>>>> >>> > requested ALL documentation to be delivered as a separate > > >>product, > > >>>>> most > > >>>>> >>> > of > > >>>>> >>> > which is already present and includes functional docs, > > >>technical > > >>>>> docs, > > >>>>> >>> > source docs, readers, etc. > > >>>>> >>> > This product will run for a number of years, currently 4 > > >>virtual > > >>>>> >>> > casestudies have been implemented and 50 more will be > > required > > >>>>> over the > > >>>>> >>> > next few years (casestudy == adventure game). A number of > > >>people > > >>>>> are > > >>>>> >>> > working on this project together, ussually not having a clue > > >>what > > >>>>> the > > >>>>> >>> > other > > >>>>> >>> > one does, they just agree on a common interface for example > > >>>>> between > > >>>>> >>> > client > > >>>>> >>> > and server (which is documented by examples mostly). > > >>>>> >>> > Lots of changes will probably be required, but since the > > code > > >>is > > >>>>> >>> > modular, > > >>>>> >>> > its clean (99,9%) and well documented, we can analyse what > > has > > >>to > > >>>>> be > > >>>>> >>> > refactored and what doesnt need to be. > > >>>>> >>> > > > >>>>> >>> > This is not to start up the discussion again whether or not > > to > > >>>>> document > > >>>>> >>> > your code, just to tell you that almost all our clients (our > > >>>>> company has > > >>>>> >>> > about 50 ppl and a lot of clients) request a solid design, > > >>solid > > >>>>> >>> > documentation and a copy of the sourcecode. Internally we > > are > > >>all > > >>>>> >>> > expected > > >>>>> >>> > to have a high standard and work on increasing this standard > > >>even > > >>>>> >>> > further > > >>>>> >>> > (for example by reading books such as 'code complete', > > taking > > >>>>> >>> > certifications, studying oo development). This is the same > > for > > >>>>> java, > > >>>>> >>> > php, > > >>>>> >>> > AS1, AS2, visual basic or c++ developers. > > >>>>> >>> > > > >>>>> >>> > Does the way we work slow us down? No. > > >>>>> >>> > Does the way we work cost us clients? Nope. > > >>>>> >>> > Does everything need to be documented? No ofcourse not. > > >>>>> >>> > Is this approach applicable to all types of projects? Nope. > > >>>>> >>> > Will we hire someone who is fast but does not document his > > >>crappy > > >>>>> code, > > >>>>> >>> > again? We surely wont, and we know becoz we review his code > > >>after > > >>>>> each > > >>>>> >>> > project. > > >>>>> >>> > > > >>>>> >>> > I do think lots of the arguments given here against > > >>documenting > > >>>>> are just > > >>>>> >>> > excuses in order not to have to, or a lack of skill in the > > oo > > >>>>> design > > >>>>> >>> > area. Rewriting and rewriting and rewriting (with or > > without > > >>>>> >>> > documentation) should make warnings bells go off in your > > head, > > >>>>> with or > > >>>>> >>> > without someone paying for it. > > >>>>> >>> > Can I do the same very cool things all the > > >>>>> non-documenting-guru/hackers > > >>>>> >>> > do? > > >>>>> >>> > Nah unfortunately not, but thats beside the point ;). > > >>>>> >>> > > > >>>>> >>> > When it comes down to it, I agree you have to pragmatic when > > >>>>> coding, not > > >>>>> >>> > everything we do has to have an academic standard, but you > > >>>>> shouldn't > > >>>>> >>> > grab > > >>>>> >>> > every opportunity to write crappy code with both hands > > either. > > >>>>> >>> > > > >>>>> >>> > Just my 2 cents... > > >>>>> >>> > H > > >>>>> >>> > > > >>>>> >>> > > > >>>>> >>> > At 08:51 AM 12/23/2005, you wrote: > > >>>>> >>> > >>I think it reflects the nature of flash and its history. > > >>>>> >>> > > Not to mention the diverse skillset of its > > >>developer-base. A > > >>>>> lot of > > >>>>> >>> > > people learned to write code in Flash, and the question of > > >>>>> whether > > >>>>> >>> > > they > > >>>>> >>> > > are doing it the "right" way or not is debatable. > > >>>>> >>> > > > > >>>>> >>> > >>In other words, as flash becomes a real software > > development > > >>>>> platform, > > >>>>> >>> > >>real development methodologies will become more important. > > >>>>> >>> > > That's really what it comes down to. As you start > > >>building > > >>>>> >>> > > longer-term > > >>>>> >>> > > projects and using standardized methodologies, these > > things > > >>>>> start to > > >>>>> >>> > > become more important. I still do the occasional one-off > > >>>>> animation or > > >>>>> >>> > > ad, > > >>>>> >>> > > but that's not where I spend the majority of my time these > > >>days. > > >>>>> >>> > > > > >>>>> >>> > >ryanm > > >>>>> >>> > >_______________________________________________ > > >>>>> >>> > >Flashcoders mailing list > > >>>>> >>> > >[email protected] > > >>>>> >>> > >http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > >>>>> >>> > > > >>>>> >>> > _______________________________________________ > > >>>>> >>> > Flashcoders mailing list > > >>>>> >>> > [email protected] > > >>>>> >>> > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > >>>>> >>> > > > >>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>> >>> Flashcoders mailing list > > >>>>> >>> [email protected] > > >>>>> >>> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>> >>> Flashcoders mailing list > > >>>>> >>> [email protected] > > >>>>> >>> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>_______________________________________________ > > >>>>> >>Flashcoders mailing list > > >>>>> >>[email protected] > > >>>>> >>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >>_______________________________________________ > > >>>>> >>Flashcoders mailing list > > >>>>> >>[email protected] > > >>>>> >>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > >>>>> NOTICE: > > >>>>> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain > > >>privileged or > > >>>>confidential information. If you have received it in error, please > > >>notify the sender > > >>>>immediately and delete the original. Any other use of this e-mail by > > >>you is > > >>>>prohibited. > > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>> Flashcoders mailing list > > >>>>> [email protected] > > >>>>> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > >>>>> > > >>>>_______________________________________________ > > >>>>Flashcoders mailing list > > >>>>[email protected] > > >>>>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > >>_______________________________________________ > > >>Flashcoders mailing list > > >>[email protected] > > >>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > _______________________________________________ > > Flashcoders mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > > _______________________________________________ > Flashcoders mailing list > [email protected] > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > _______________________________________________ Flashcoders mailing list [email protected] http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
