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" > <flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com> > >>>>> >>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" > >><flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com> > >>>>> >>> 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 > >>>>> >>> > >Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > >>>>> >>> > >http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>>>> >>> > Flashcoders mailing list > >>>>> >>> > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > >>>>> >>> > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> >>> Flashcoders mailing list > >>>>> >>> Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > >>>>> >>> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> >>> Flashcoders mailing list > >>>>> >>> Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > >>>>> >>> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > >>>>> >>> > >>>>> >>_______________________________________________ > >>>>> >>Flashcoders mailing list > >>>>> >>Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > >>>>> >>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >>_______________________________________________ > >>>>> >>Flashcoders mailing list > >>>>> >>Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > >>>>> >>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 > >>>>> Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > >>>>> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > >>>>> > >>>>_______________________________________________ > >>>>Flashcoders mailing list > >>>>Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > >>>>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > >>_______________________________________________ > >>Flashcoders mailing list > >>Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > >>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > _______________________________________________ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > _______________________________________________ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
