Hi all. hi Tom, hi Nick, hi Wally I have to thank you for your understanding! The common denominator of all answers on why the new version of Flex Builder 3 should be renamed to Flash Builder 4 is "WTF No big deal". Or better, as Tom put it: "Just marketing bollocks!!" LOL
Then I can call myself anything I like, as long as I keep exercising succesfully my discipline writting code in a framework used to be called Flex Builder (plug-in IDE to Eclipse) and now called Flash Builder IDE. What's bugging me is that all my current work done for the last 2 years, has to be referencing as been done in a non-existing (now obsolete?) framework, that as time goes will have its trade name placed next to T-Rex. As I understand it, this marketing decision is devaluating my investment in a development platform. (Not my first time unfortunatelly) Although not a stickler, I believe marketeers shouldn't be creating a mess out of logic. Like presenting us a product named Flash Builder4 with no previous Flash Builder3. If they think Flash Builder IS the name, why don't they call this "new" product just "Flash Builder v1"? Or, are they afraid this would confuse the market? BTW should this "Flexcoders" group be renamed to "Flashcoders"? Or keep it going as is? (Resembling groups of practicioners in now extinct obscure arts, black magic etc? if you excuse me the pun..) Thanks all for the very thoughtful replies George --- In [email protected], Wally Kolcz <wko...@...> wrote: > > 1.) Keeping all their items more focused on the 'Flash Platform'. > 2.) Call yourself a 'Flash Developer specializing in the Flex > Framework'. Flex is not a language, its a Framework. It runs your > application on a 2 frame time line. Frame 1 is the application loader, > Frame 2 is your application. MXML gets compiled into ActionScript. All > tags are easy representations of true AS classes. It is created for > speed. Kinda like how ColdFusion is compiled into Java. You can create > full working Flex apps without any MXML. I guess if you are worried > about being confused with an animator call yourself a 'ActionScript > Developer specializing in the Flex Framework' > 5.) Doubt it too. They seem just to be aligning all the products related > to Flash with Flash (Flash Builder, Flash Professional, Flash Catalyst) > 6.) Blaze will probably remain around as a lesser version of LCDS. You > lose some really cool features, but don't pay the monster price tag. I > think Adobe knows that some of the success of Flash/Flex is that > streaming data interaction and to only offer a pay version (LCDS) would > stunt the growth of the community. Not all independant developer, web > hosts, or small-mid companies can afford the full LCDS price tag. > > On 2/2/2010 4:42 AM, GeorgeB wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > I am a fully occupied Flex v3 developer, and don't have spare time to > > switch to Flex v4 before the projects I work on are over and done. > > While on the side subject that Gordon Smith (post 152124) raised, may > > I ask for reasonable answers? (since what I read worry me a lot about > > the future of my projects support from Adobe): > > > > 1. What was the meaning of Adobe changing the name from Flex Builder > > (v3) to Flash Builder, while keeping the upgrade path from v3 to v4? > > 2. I used to call myself a Flex developer, i.e MXML plus AS3 > > programmer. Should I have to call myself a Flash developer from now on? > > 3. I understand there were Flash developers around since the very > > begining. They have expertise among other things in timeline effects > > and sequential animation programming using tools like Creative Suite > > (Photoshop etc) way out of my discipline of database RIAs. Do I have > > to describe myself as a creative animator now? > > 4. If this is v4 of something, shouldn't that be an update of it's > > previous version 3? (In this case does Flex = Flash?) > > 5. Is Adobe running out of trade names? (or running out of what?) > > 6. Also what's the future of BlazeDS after recent marketing > > developments on LCESDS (or is it LCDSES?)? > > > > BTW I used to think of Adobe as a technology company. Am I mistaken? > > > > Thanks all > > George > > > > >
