I'm looking for the 10 best reasons to use LZX instead of JavaScript
when building rich browser and mobile applications.

Why are we coding in LZX? What was the initial idea behind creating
the language, and is the initial idea of LZX (XML + JS + XPath ...)
still valid in times of a web world which seems to be more and more
influenced by JavaScript? What does the general of adoption of JSON
instead of XML in web services mean for LZX?

The results of this discussion will be summed up in a blog post on the
LZX language, which I plan to publish in January 2011, and will be
part of future presentations on OL as part of the KamiJS project. I'm
specifically interested in what the OL team thinks the language will
look like in 12-18 months from now. What are your visions for LZX, and
how are you planning to better promote the language? And what would
you have to say regarding

 - official support for coding classes in JS (which means: the next
minor update of OL will not break my existing class code)
 - generally less changes in LZX! There are so many changes to the
language in the past 3 years, that it makes the LZX the most
"unstable" language to use in all of my IT projects. The fact that the
Laszlo has full control over the LZX language makes the language a
target to syntax changes directly related to the next release of
Laszlo Webtop, which is not good for the language in general, I
believe.
 - AS3 runtimes and debugging - getting rid of the dependency on the
SWF8 runtime to detect errors (the more Flash 10 /10.x APIs are used,
the less is the approach to test with SWF8 to get a better
understanding of what's wrong within your code valid - since the app
won't compile). That's especially true for any SWC libraries you
include.

But I'm not only interested in the OL teams opinion, but especially
interested in what OpenLaszlo adopters with at least 6 months in OL
coding experience think of the language. What do you like about LZX at
the moment, and what should be improved?

Any input and comments are very welcome.

Raju

Reply via email to