but you won't be able to write it all in
one language if you choose, nor will you be able to extend it how you
see fit.
Sure you will. They are including a browser engine which I assume will
be gecko. This means they will support a plugin architecture. Its not
the same thing as neko, but on
I assume will be gecko
Hopefully your're right. I think this is a key point that Adobe
shouldn't wait to disclose. Because at this point is something that
they should alredy have decided.
Having said that, it will be a huge surprise for me if they allow us
freely adding our own plugins.
On 9/2/06, Zárate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having said that, it will be a huge surprise for me if they allow us
freely adding our own plugins.
Why not? They did with Director..?
Ian
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription
Zárate wrote:
a company with a large reputation
Yeah, I'd even say a *huge* reputation but what reputation? Do we
start talking about wmode? Shared fonts? Problems with
Stage.with/Stage.height? MovieclipLoader? Components?
We all understand these issues, but they are still irrelevant.
On 9/1/06, Cliff Rowley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We all understand these issues, but they are still irrelevant. We're
developers, and the people we sell to are not. They don't care about
these things one jot.
Cliff, you are working for the wrong people. ;-) I've been there;
luckily the
Chris Allen wrote:
If you are selling directly to clients as a
freelancer or agency, it's the same thing, if they respect you, then
your opinion on the technology that they should choose will matter.
Not the same thing at all. Respect is something you have to earn over
time with a new
And anyhow, this is still beyond the original point - which was that
SWHX will almost certainly move away from compatibility with
AS3/ActionScript and closer to HaXe/Screenweaver unity ;)
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your
: Friday, September 01, 2006 4:07 PM
To: Flashcoders mailing list
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] ANN: Screenweaver HX - Version 1.0
And anyhow, this is still beyond the original point - which was that
SWHX will almost certainly move away from compatibility with
AS3/ActionScript and closer to HaXe
I do understand that. Currently this is not a problem, but as AS3/FP9 move
forward on their own inevitable path, will SWHX play catchup or will it
concentrate on its own thing? I suspect the latter.
On 9/2/06, Thomas Wester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please note SWHX has full support for AS3
I totally agree Thomas. I don't think that it is limited in the way
that Cliff is describing. In fact they explicitly say it's not. Nor
will it move away from AS3 as it's targeting the same virtual machine
in the Flash player. Cliff seems to have already made up his mind on
the subject of what
So HX is the successor to v4? Shame for me, since I'll be saying bye bye to
Screenweaver and waiting for Apollo, but good luck in your ventures - I
think there's a lot of value in it.
On 8/31/06, Edwin van Rijkom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi list,
We are happy to announce that Screenweaver HX
I hope you're not giving up because you think you have to use haXe for
all of your apps:
On top of 'standard' haXe-to-haXe communications, Screenweaver HX
features a Flash library that allows communications between a haXe
written back-end and a Flash IDE developed front-end. Both AS2 and AS3
As long as it's fully supported and not just bolted on the side, that's fine
by me. However I would hedge my bets that HX will slowly move away as
Apollo steps in. I'll certainly use it in the meantime, but I suspect the
gravity of the HaXe/Screenweaver partnership will win out overall (and
As long as it's fully supported and not just bolted on the side, that's
fine
by me. However I would hedge my bets that HX will slowly move away as
Apollo steps in. I'll certainly use it in the meantime, but I suspect the
gravity of the HaXe/Screenweaver partnership will win out overall (and
Guys,
This looks brilliant! Can't wait to have a play with it. Thanks for
all your hard work.
Cheers,
Ian
On 8/31/06, Edwin van Rijkom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi list,
We are happy to announce that Screenweaver HX - version 1.0 is now
available!
Screenweaver HX is an (open source)
Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
Several important differences between Screenweaver HX and Apollo :
- size : SWHX takes 450 KB. Apollo is expected to be in the 5-9 MB range
Sure, but Apollo is a global runtime isn't it?
- extensibility : SWHX is extensible with custom-made C libraries.
Apollo is not
Several important differences between Screenweaver HX and Apollo :
- size : SWHX takes 450 KB. Apollo is expected to be in the 5-9 MB range
Sure, but Apollo is a global runtime isn't it?
What do you exactly mean by a global runtime ? It's possible that once
installed, you might not have to
- someone who will fix the problem.
Derek Vadneau
- Original Message -
From: Nicolas Cannasse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Flashcoders mailing list flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 3:11 PM
Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [Flashcoders] ANN: Screenweaver HX - Version 1.0
It's not simply about marketing or branding. It's about accountability.
With an open-source project there is no accountability. A corporation may
use open-source software, but it will be purchased through a company that
can offer support and more importantly accountability. So when the
And if something goes wrong, then in all closed source softwares, EULA
prevent all kind of accountability anyway because software companies
don't want to get used for lost data - even if it was a bug in their
application. You'll of course get some kind of support, and hopefully
your bug will take
I think, to be honest, that you're just a bit of an idealist. Which is
good, but we have to live and work in the real world where we don't
always get to make the decisions.
Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
If nothing goes wrong, guess which one is cheaper ? :)
Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
What do you exactly mean by a global runtime ? It's possible that once
installed, you might not have to install it again. But 5-9 MB is quite
big for the user the first time he want to download your application.
Evidently from your reply you know what I mean by a
Not exactly sure why, except for the Brand ? but you admited before
that ScreenWeaver has already gained some reputation of its own... Or
is this just unfounded discrimination ? ;)
It's true, Screenweaver has gained some reputation. So now 2/10
non-developers might have heard of it. Brand,
hank williams wrote:
The reality is that the larger the company, the greater the liklihood
that they only want to buy from another large company. This is why the
whole market has moved from b2b to b2c. Consumers dont care about who
sold them stuff. Big companies generally care deeply. This means
Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
Well I think they must sometimes think it very LOUD when seeing all the
press coverage AJAX is getting ;)
I don't get your point..
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the
There's truth in what you guys are saying from a practical stance, I
think. But, it is equally true that there are successful open source
projects, that do get used by commercial companies for production
purposes. This is true for all sorts of projects, but especially so for
application
This is of course true. I am excited about swhx for my application. My
only point was that it is perfectly reasonable for someone to think
that his clients or customers would prefer something else because of
the large company mentality. But I do think lots of users will not
have any political
hank williams wrote:
This is of course true. I am excited about swhx for my application. My
only point was that it is perfectly reasonable for someone to think
that his clients or customers would prefer something else because of
the large company mentality. But I do think lots of users will not
On 9/1/06, Edwin van Rijkom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, I can see that line of reasoning. One can debate over whether
developers or customers are wrong or right on finding using open source
software unattractive, and all its pro's and con's, but I think no one
has been able to answer that
Cliff Rowley wrote:
On 9/1/06, Edwin van Rijkom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, I can see that line of reasoning. One can debate over whether
developers or customers are wrong or right on finding using open source
software unattractive, and all its pro's and con's, but I think no one
has been
On 9/1/06, Edwin van Rijkom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it will, but as I said, I think it will happen in it's own
right -
as the SW/HX combination - not as an extension to the existing
Flash/Flex
platform.
I agree that's the most likely scenario.
I'm glad my point is finally being
31 matches
Mail list logo
