> I think that's false. There are lots of people who are interested in > using frameworks and using them completely.
We have to agree to disagree on this one. > There are always tradeoffs: adopt the framework, you give some > things up, but you get others. Depending on their needs, some people will > make that trade, others won't. Frameworks shouldn't restrict your workflow, they should assist it. It's not like Rails makes other parts of Ruby break. It's not like Cake or Zend break parts of PHP. They don't force you to work in a specific way using only their components. They are extremely well thought out, flexible frameworks that help developers, not hinder them. Nobody is jumping up and down shouting how great XP Components is, but there's plenty of buzz about Rails and Cake and Zend. There is no good reason for XP components to not play nicely with anybody else. I think it's a poor framework because no matter how good it might be at what it does, what it does is limited. The primary reason it's not a good framework is that it's not flexible. It forces you to develop in a very specific way. It forces you to use only their components. If you don't, your apps don't work right. When new versions of Flash come out, and new code doesn't work, and you've invested all this time learning a framework that is so restrictive and inflexible, you will be the one who suffers, not them. They made their money off you already. > But I agree that they should make > their strategy clear on their site. Absolutely. Plenty of people purchase the XP components because 1) They look like really good components 2) It's not clear that you have to only use their components 3) It's entirely unclear that you also have to build your root movie with two frames, with one of their primary components loading in the rest of your application. Many developers buy components in the middle of a project because they need some kind of functionality and either MM's components are cutting it, or they're trying to save coding time. XP Components are NOT designed for that. They're designed to be used from the ground floor of an application, to be built entirely within the XP framework. Therefore, anyone who buys XP Components expecting them to HELP them in that situation is going to be extremely disappointed, and is going to be out $349. They just got scammed because they didn't take the time to read the insane amount of documentation you have to read to even find out these FACTS about the system. They think, how hard can it be to implement a component? I'll refer to the documentation after I purchase. Little do they know that if they only spent an hour or so reading documentation, they'd find out that these components are not actually components, but a very specific framework for developing applications. _______________________________________________ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
