This is actually a very interesting discussion to me, because psychologically I've been going through the same "uncomfortability" learning curve with MXML. I am coming from a "pure" AS2 background (and Java before that), where I prefered to contain as much code as possible to my classes. One psychological aspect of this approach is that you as a programmer control exactly what your code is doing, you know every single little thing going on because you wrote the code. When mxmlc started to generate initialization code "behind the scenes" it made feel uncomfortable, and I am still trying to get over this feeling by reading the mxmlc-generated actionscript (which isn't exactly transparent in terms of understanding either). Yes, certainly MXML is so much more preferrable in terms of layout to pure AS, but the psychological aspect of "loss of control" and the associated discomfort is definitely there for me.
When you work with an framework which does a lot of things for you, the mindset is somewhat different from the "ground-up total control approach". Certainly, the things that the frameworks authors thought about when desigining the environment are so much simpler to implement that the choice should be clear. But often, as soon as you (the developer) slightly deviate from the path intended for you by the framework designers, you get into the game of trying to fool the framework into doing what you want. This pattern of reasoning is really very different from the "total design" pattern that a developer has go through in the "ground-up approach". -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
