Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
This has been the pendulum usually swings. Good to hear it. Brian Mays On 7/21/08 6:02 AM, "allandt bik-elliott (thefieldcomic.com)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > adobe has been saying that the next version of flash will be designer-driven > so it's maybe something that is being looked at at the moment ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
adobe has been saying that the next version of flash will be designer-driven so it's maybe something that is being looked at at the moment On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 6:22 PM, daniele tassone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Double click on the component/botton and auto-creation of AS3 code is other > solution > in order to keep good code and good humor for people that don't want to > write code; > > 3 weeks ago i have explain at creative team that will work with me, how we > can work > togheter with as3; not happy to see that we can't use event on Button. > > Next week other lesson at different creative team in order to explain same > things. > I'll hear the same word: loadMovie ? event ? > > I don't want to speak bad about AS3, I think that is a good language/ide, > with a little bit of problem because it's young. > > But i hope that Adobe can give the right way in order to do more and better > with low work. > Adobe have great experience in designer-tool-market, I'll hope for the > future. > > Daniele Tassone > > > > 2008/7/18 allandt bik-elliott (thefieldcomic.com) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > i think someone has touched on it before, but if there is to be code > > applicable to movieclips / buttons on stage then they should work > similarly > > to the way motion tweens can be copied as actionscript - allow the bad > > behaviour for numpties and quick jobs, but then compensate to move the > code > > to where it should be. > > > > a > > > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Juan Pablo Califano < > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > You're probably right. Nevertheless, I think the spirit of the article > > has > > > been misunderstood. As I read it, it pointed out the need to have a > > > higher-level visual-style user interface to make simple things easier > for > > > non programmers. Visual tools that can intuitively generate the AS 3 > code > > > for adding simple behaviours and interactivity. I'm a programmer > myself > > > and > > > I don't think I'd use these features, but I now many people I work with > > who > > > would love to have them available. It'd make their lives easier, > without > > > compromising efficency or mantainability (we're talking about simple > > stuff > > > anyway). I believe the "charges" about button events, getURL and > > > loadMovie are a good example of this point. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Juan Pablo Califano > > > > > > > > > 2008/7/18, Abe Pazos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > I think most of the people who would agree > > > > with these charges are not in this mailing list. > > > > > > > > Are there more AS3 coders out there? > > > > Or more designers who sometimes use > > > > a line or two of ActionScript with gotoAndPlays, > > > > loadMovies, on release/rollover/rollout? > > > > > > > > I wonder how would this discussion look > > > > like if this was a designers mailing list? > > > > > > > > Abe > > > > ___ > > > > Flashcoders mailing list > > > > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > > > > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > > > > > > ___ > > > Flashcoders mailing list > > > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > > > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > > > > ___ > > Flashcoders mailing list > > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
Double click on the component/botton and auto-creation of AS3 code is other solution in order to keep good code and good humor for people that don't want to write code; 3 weeks ago i have explain at creative team that will work with me, how we can work togheter with as3; not happy to see that we can't use event on Button. Next week other lesson at different creative team in order to explain same things. I'll hear the same word: loadMovie ? event ? I don't want to speak bad about AS3, I think that is a good language/ide, with a little bit of problem because it's young. But i hope that Adobe can give the right way in order to do more and better with low work. Adobe have great experience in designer-tool-market, I'll hope for the future. Daniele Tassone 2008/7/18 allandt bik-elliott (thefieldcomic.com) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > i think someone has touched on it before, but if there is to be code > applicable to movieclips / buttons on stage then they should work similarly > to the way motion tweens can be copied as actionscript - allow the bad > behaviour for numpties and quick jobs, but then compensate to move the code > to where it should be. > > a > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Juan Pablo Califano < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You're probably right. Nevertheless, I think the spirit of the article > has > > been misunderstood. As I read it, it pointed out the need to have a > > higher-level visual-style user interface to make simple things easier for > > non programmers. Visual tools that can intuitively generate the AS 3 code > > for adding simple behaviours and interactivity. I'm a programmer myself > > and > > I don't think I'd use these features, but I now many people I work with > who > > would love to have them available. It'd make their lives easier, without > > compromising efficency or mantainability (we're talking about simple > stuff > > anyway). I believe the "charges" about button events, getURL and > > loadMovie are a good example of this point. > > > > Cheers > > Juan Pablo Califano > > > > > > 2008/7/18, Abe Pazos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > I think most of the people who would agree > > > with these charges are not in this mailing list. > > > > > > Are there more AS3 coders out there? > > > Or more designers who sometimes use > > > a line or two of ActionScript with gotoAndPlays, > > > loadMovies, on release/rollover/rollout? > > > > > > I wonder how would this discussion look > > > like if this was a designers mailing list? > > > > > > Abe > > > ___ > > > Flashcoders mailing list > > > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > > > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > > > > ___ > > Flashcoders mailing list > > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
i think someone has touched on it before, but if there is to be code applicable to movieclips / buttons on stage then they should work similarly to the way motion tweens can be copied as actionscript - allow the bad behaviour for numpties and quick jobs, but then compensate to move the code to where it should be. a On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Juan Pablo Califano < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You're probably right. Nevertheless, I think the spirit of the article has > been misunderstood. As I read it, it pointed out the need to have a > higher-level visual-style user interface to make simple things easier for > non programmers. Visual tools that can intuitively generate the AS 3 code > for adding simple behaviours and interactivity. I'm a programmer myself > and > I don't think I'd use these features, but I now many people I work with who > would love to have them available. It'd make their lives easier, without > compromising efficency or mantainability (we're talking about simple stuff > anyway). I believe the "charges" about button events, getURL and > loadMovie are a good example of this point. > > Cheers > Juan Pablo Califano > > > 2008/7/18, Abe Pazos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > I think most of the people who would agree > > with these charges are not in this mailing list. > > > > Are there more AS3 coders out there? > > Or more designers who sometimes use > > a line or two of ActionScript with gotoAndPlays, > > loadMovies, on release/rollover/rollout? > > > > I wonder how would this discussion look > > like if this was a designers mailing list? > > > > Abe > > ___ > > Flashcoders mailing list > > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
You're probably right. Nevertheless, I think the spirit of the article has been misunderstood. As I read it, it pointed out the need to have a higher-level visual-style user interface to make simple things easier for non programmers. Visual tools that can intuitively generate the AS 3 code for adding simple behaviours and interactivity. I'm a programmer myself and I don't think I'd use these features, but I now many people I work with who would love to have them available. It'd make their lives easier, without compromising efficency or mantainability (we're talking about simple stuff anyway). I believe the "charges" about button events, getURL and loadMovie are a good example of this point. Cheers Juan Pablo Califano 2008/7/18, Abe Pazos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I think most of the people who would agree > with these charges are not in this mailing list. > > Are there more AS3 coders out there? > Or more designers who sometimes use > a line or two of ActionScript with gotoAndPlays, > loadMovies, on release/rollover/rollout? > > I wonder how would this discussion look > like if this was a designers mailing list? > > Abe > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
I think most of the people who would agree with these charges are not in this mailing list. Are there more AS3 coders out there? Or more designers who sometimes use a line or two of ActionScript with gotoAndPlays, loadMovies, on release/rollover/rollout? I wonder how would this discussion look like if this was a designers mailing list? Abe ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
I'm in the same boat here (been working with Flash since v4 came out, but have been coding for 25 years). Most of the stuff that has been iterated in this thread somewhat echo my opinions. I particularly agree with the one statement down below: AS3 is easier to use. The stigma is that AS2 coders have to learn a new way if you want to start coding with AS3. IMHO, it's a more proper way and more functional and far less confusing to the next person who has to look at an FLA and maintain it. The article seemed a bit whiny as a refusal to change. There's nothing in those changes that are more difficult to implement than their predecessors. If anything, I half agree with the unloading issue. All objects when discarded should be garbage collectable, timeline or not. To the garbage collector, it is just dereferenced object and not discarding it is definitely a bug more than anything else. However, I don't agree for a simple unload movie... that could break OOP logic structures if one were to simply unload without dereference. Again, we're talking a more structured language and despite its simplicity, there is a responsibility on the part of the person writing code. I don't apologize for being rather unforgiving towards this. AS2 was an excuse for allowing a lot of bad habits, and now AS3 has addressed those bad habits. Adobe shouldn't have to go back to appeasing those bad habits as much as they should be showing more how to implement things the AS3 way. jord Romuald Quantin wrote: Well, I've coded years with AS2 and I have to say, except for the problem with loaded SWF, which will probably be solved soon: http://www.gskinner.com/blog/archives/2008/07/additional_info.html, I'm not missing AS2 at all!! I'm not from another language but AS3 is a lot cleaner, nothing to compare. So yes, I guess it is easier to use. Probably because I'm not using a lot the flash IDE, but I can understand that for people who are using it or to make quick dirty test, some old AS features can be missed. Romu ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
I don't know if I could agree with the statement below. I have no real use for Flex as I can get everything I need from Flash, and can take it down as granular as I want. Flash's failure, IMHO, is providing a proper coding IDE for just plain ol' AS3, sans Flex. Thank goodness for things like FlashDevelop stepping in (and even on a Mac it still does me well in a virtualized Windows environment). jord Kerry Thompson wrote: It IS two apps. Flash and Flex. More and more of us hard-core coder types are using Flex for heavy-duty development. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
The problem with splitting Flash up into the Designer App and the Coder App (Talking Flash here, not Flex which i've never used) is that those of us that have to deal with Flash as a scaling entity (I'm a freelance developer so this week it's banners, next week it's site development and OOP) will be forced to use 2 different environments, wtih all the relearning that using different apps takes. I like how I can choose to use the Flash IDE for anything or kick development out to another app for more intense work (I've been using FlashDevelop with parallels where necessary) for any project I do. Designers need training to learn to use the timeline for their code rather than putting it into arbitrary movieclips. That's the solution to the new paradigm. On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Matt S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Jason Van Pelt > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The negative side to creating a "flash without the as3" application is > that > > many of us "grew up" with Flash and used it as a way to learn to be > > developers. I think Colin's point isn't to provide a basic app to basic > > users, necessarily, but to make the point of entry easy for new users -- > as > > it was for us. > > > > I started in version 3! :-) > > I think it was 4 for me. Good times > > .m > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Jason Van Pelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The negative side to creating a "flash without the as3" application is that > many of us "grew up" with Flash and used it as a way to learn to be > developers. I think Colin's point isn't to provide a basic app to basic > users, necessarily, but to make the point of entry easy for new users -- as > it was for us. > > I started in version 3! :-) I think it was 4 for me. Good times .m ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
The negative side to creating a "flash without the as3" application is that many of us "grew up" with Flash and used it as a way to learn to be developers. I think Colin's point isn't to provide a basic app to basic users, necessarily, but to make the point of entry easy for new users -- as it was for us. I started in version 3! :-) Jason Van Pelt Senior Interactive Developer 504.210.1232 (p) / 504.581.2731 (f) Peter A. Mayer Advertising, Inc. www.peteramayer.com___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Meinte van't Kruis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah I know, but I'm suggesting a version which is explicitly > > targetted at that user. > > So you mean flash cs3, but without the actionscript ;) :P Exactly! .m ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
> Yeah I know, but I'm suggesting a version which is explicitly > targetted at that user. So you mean flash cs3, but without the actionscript ;) :P > But I think part of the problem is the increasingly > schizophrenic nature of Flash's "identity" as an application. Well, this has maybe always been the case, and to a certain extent will remain so. I certainly hope so, because that's what makes flash so much fun for me. Another big part of the problem is perhaps; nostalgia, I've seen alot of sentences in this discussion which started with 'the good old days' ;) On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:35 PM, Matt S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Kerry Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Flash CS3 has all the features of Flash 8--in fact, Flash 6. You can > still > > write AS2 code, and you can still do all the tweening and timeline > animation > > you want. I work with artists regularly who don't do a lick of coding, > but > > turn out some really nice assets for me. > > > > Yeah I know, but I'm suggesting a version which is explicitly > targetted at that user. > > .m > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > -- M.A. van't Kruis http://www.malatze.nl/ ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Kerry Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Flash CS3 has all the features of Flash 8--in fact, Flash 6. You can still > write AS2 code, and you can still do all the tweening and timeline animation > you want. I work with artists regularly who don't do a lick of coding, but > turn out some really nice assets for me. > Yeah I know, but I'm suggesting a version which is explicitly targetted at that user. .m ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
Matt S. wrote: > I know, Jason called me on that :) Yeah, I saw that. He beat me to the punch. (Jason, you _will_ pay! ;-) > But I guess my real point was that > there needs to be another version of Flash which is explicitly > targeted at the non-coder, at the people who want to timeline and > tween and drag-drop their way to an animated/interactive product. Flash CS3 has all the features of Flash 8--in fact, Flash 6. You can still write AS2 code, and you can still do all the tweening and timeline animation you want. I work with artists regularly who don't do a lick of coding, but turn out some really nice assets for me. Actually, come to think of it, I'm not sure CS3 has the old click-and-choose coding--I forget what it was called, but the alternate to "expert mode". If that is missing, it would be too bad, because that does make medium-level coding accessible to the non-programmer. Cordially, Kerry Thompson ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
I know, Jason called me on that :) But I guess my real point was that there needs to be another version of Flash which is explicitly targeted at the non-coder, at the people who want to timeline and tween and drag-drop their way to an animated/interactive product. Flash for dummies as it were. Break off a third version aimed at those who still want to use Flash as it was originally developed back in the day. There's certainly still a demand for it, and no other product which does it as well. .m On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Kerry Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matt S. wrote: > >> it seems like Flash may need to >> become two apps in the long run. Or rather, EXPLICITLY become two >> apps, since at this point it already basically is. > > It IS two apps. Flash and Flex. > > More and more of us hard-core coder types are using Flex for heavy-duty > development. I often work on a team that includes an artist who knows little > or no AS, but does some wicked Movie Clips in Flash. > > Cordially, > > Kerry Thompson > > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
Matt S. wrote: > it seems like Flash may need to > become two apps in the long run. Or rather, EXPLICITLY become two > apps, since at this point it already basically is. It IS two apps. Flash and Flex. More and more of us hard-core coder types are using Flex for heavy-duty development. I often work on a team that includes an artist who knows little or no AS, but does some wicked Movie Clips in Flash. Cordially, Kerry Thompson ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
On 7/17/08 10:35 AM, "Matt S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But I think part of the problem is the increasingly > schizophrenic nature of Flash's "identity" as an application. I like that. That's my new mantra :-) Brian Mays ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
>>Maybe THREE Apps then ;) >> >>Flash CS3, FlexBuilder, and some sort of Animation/Timeline >>focused app, called, lets say, FutureSplash. ;) There you go! Jason Merrill Bank of America Enterprise Technology & Global Risk L&LD Instructional Technology & Media Join the Bank of America Flash Platform Developer Community Are you a Bank of America associate interested in innovative learning ideas and technologies? Check out our internal GT&O Innovative Learning Blog & subscribe. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
Matt S. wrote: But I think part of the problem is the increasingly schizophrenic nature of Flash's "identity" as an application. This is the money quote of this whole discussion, IMO. AS3 is fine as a language. The "charges" are indicative of a bigger problem, however. Zeh ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
Maybe THREE Apps then ;) Flash CS3, FlexBuilder, and some sort of Animation/Timeline focused app, called, lets say, FutureSplash. ;) .m On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Merrill, Jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nice post - I agree with most of what you have said... although just a > comment on this one, "it seems like Flash may need to become two apps in > the long run. Or rather, EXPLICITLY become two apps" > > It already has: Flash CS3 and Flexbuilder. Adobe is working on other > tools too to ease the workflow between Flash and Flex and other Adobe > products. > > > Jason Merrill > Bank of America > Enterprise Technology & Global Risk L&LD > Instructional Technology & Media > > Join the Bank of America Flash Platform Developer Community > > Are you a Bank of America associate interested in innovative learning > ideas and technologies? > Check out our internal GT&O Innovative Learning Blog & subscribe. > > > >>>-Original Message- >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>>Of Matt S. >>>Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 11:36 AM >>>To: Flash Coders List >>>Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0 >>> >>>On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Meinte van't Kruis >>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> I don't see why people make such a distinction between designer and >>>> programmer, I think, espessially in the flash environment, this >>>> distinction is very vague and you'll see alot of designers doing >>>> programmer work and vice versa. >>> >>>Thats true, mostly, but with the arrival of AS3 that has >>>changed somewhat. As a creative-turned-developer, I'm quite >>>comfortable with >>>AS3 and for the most part havent looked back or missed AS2 at >>>all (except when I have to relearn how to do something for >>>the first time on deadline ;) ). But I think part of the >>>problem is the increasingly schizophrenic nature of Flash's >>>"identity" as an application. Even with the advent of AS3, >>>its still unclear what defines a Flash "designer" or Flash >>>"developer", especially to people coming to it fresh who may >>>be misled by bad teachers or "learn flash in 10 minutes! >>>make a bouncing bunny!" articles in magazines which still >>>teach it as a Timeline application. Even the Flash >>>documentation still focuses heavily on the Timeline, tweening >>>etc in the early chapters, even though thats practically >>>deprecated at this point. And Flash still has friggin SCENES >>>despite those being about as looked down upon as cheese on >>>fish for like 3 years now. I still have people tell me all >>>the time that they "know flash", and when they show me their >>>work its a timeline-based animation. Which is totally fine of >>>course, but the problem is that they *dont even know* that >>>what they're showing me has very little to do with what Flash >>>currently has become. They may not even realize that those >>>amazing Flash sites they see online dont have the slightest >>>connection to their cute little timeline work, despite their >>>both being built "in flash", and when I explain that, there >>>is genuine confusion. After all, they bought Flash CS3, >>>cracked the owners manual, and looky here, the whole first >>>section is all about timelines, tweens, keyframes etc, and >>>Actionscript comes later. >>> >>>Which is not to blame anyone. >>> >>>.m >>>___ >>>Flashcoders mailing list >>>Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com >>>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders >>> > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
Nice post - I agree with most of what you have said... although just a comment on this one, "it seems like Flash may need to become two apps in the long run. Or rather, EXPLICITLY become two apps" It already has: Flash CS3 and Flexbuilder. Adobe is working on other tools too to ease the workflow between Flash and Flex and other Adobe products. Jason Merrill Bank of America Enterprise Technology & Global Risk L&LD Instructional Technology & Media Join the Bank of America Flash Platform Developer Community Are you a Bank of America associate interested in innovative learning ideas and technologies? Check out our internal GT&O Innovative Learning Blog & subscribe. >>-Original Message- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>Of Matt S. >>Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 11:36 AM >>To: Flash Coders List >>Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0 >> >>On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Meinte van't Kruis >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I don't see why people make such a distinction between designer and >>> programmer, I think, espessially in the flash environment, this >>> distinction is very vague and you'll see alot of designers doing >>> programmer work and vice versa. >> >>Thats true, mostly, but with the arrival of AS3 that has >>changed somewhat. As a creative-turned-developer, I'm quite >>comfortable with >>AS3 and for the most part havent looked back or missed AS2 at >>all (except when I have to relearn how to do something for >>the first time on deadline ;) ). But I think part of the >>problem is the increasingly schizophrenic nature of Flash's >>"identity" as an application. Even with the advent of AS3, >>its still unclear what defines a Flash "designer" or Flash >>"developer", especially to people coming to it fresh who may >>be misled by bad teachers or "learn flash in 10 minutes! >>make a bouncing bunny!" articles in magazines which still >>teach it as a Timeline application. Even the Flash >>documentation still focuses heavily on the Timeline, tweening >>etc in the early chapters, even though thats practically >>deprecated at this point. And Flash still has friggin SCENES >>despite those being about as looked down upon as cheese on >>fish for like 3 years now. I still have people tell me all >>the time that they "know flash", and when they show me their >>work its a timeline-based animation. Which is totally fine of >>course, but the problem is that they *dont even know* that >>what they're showing me has very little to do with what Flash >>currently has become. They may not even realize that those >>amazing Flash sites they see online dont have the slightest >>connection to their cute little timeline work, despite their >>both being built "in flash", and when I explain that, there >>is genuine confusion. After all, they bought Flash CS3, >>cracked the owners manual, and looky here, the whole first >>section is all about timelines, tweens, keyframes etc, and >>Actionscript comes later. >> >>Which is not to blame anyone. >> >>.m >>___ >>Flashcoders mailing list >>Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com >>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders >> ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Meinte van't Kruis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't see why people make such a distinction between designer and > programmer, > I think, espessially in the flash environment, this distinction is very > vague and you'll see > alot of designers doing programmer work and vice versa. Thats true, mostly, but with the arrival of AS3 that has changed somewhat. As a creative-turned-developer, I'm quite comfortable with AS3 and for the most part havent looked back or missed AS2 at all (except when I have to relearn how to do something for the first time on deadline ;) ). But I think part of the problem is the increasingly schizophrenic nature of Flash's "identity" as an application. Even with the advent of AS3, its still unclear what defines a Flash "designer" or Flash "developer", especially to people coming to it fresh who may be misled by bad teachers or "learn flash in 10 minutes! make a bouncing bunny!" articles in magazines which still teach it as a Timeline application. Even the Flash documentation still focuses heavily on the Timeline, tweening etc in the early chapters, even though thats practically deprecated at this point. And Flash still has friggin SCENES despite those being about as looked down upon as cheese on fish for like 3 years now. I still have people tell me all the time that they "know flash", and when they show me their work its a timeline-based animation. Which is totally fine of course, but the problem is that they *dont even know* that what they're showing me has very little to do with what Flash currently has become. They may not even realize that those amazing Flash sites they see online dont have the slightest connection to their cute little timeline work, despite their both being built "in flash", and when I explain that, there is genuine confusion. After all, they bought Flash CS3, cracked the owners manual, and looky here, the whole first section is all about timelines, tweens, keyframes etc, and Actionscript comes later. Which is not to blame anyone. But it seems like Flash may need to become two apps in the long run. Or rather, EXPLICITLY become two apps, since at this point it already basically is. .m ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
Well, I've coded years with AS2 and I have to say, except for the problem with loaded SWF, which will probably be solved soon: http://www.gskinner.com/blog/archives/2008/07/additional_info.html, I'm not missing AS2 at all!! I'm not from another language but AS3 is a lot cleaner, nothing to compare. So yes, I guess it is easier to use. Probably because I'm not using a lot the flash IDE, but I can understand that for people who are using it or to make quick dirty test, some old AS features can be missed. Romu -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Andrews Sent: 17 July 2008 15:11 To: Flash Coders List Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0 - Original Message - From: "Steven Sacks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Flash Coders List" Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 10:53 PM Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0 > Everyone forgets their roots. Nobody remembers what it was like when they > were first learning Flash and learning the basics of programming. > > Colin Moock forgot his roots when six months ago he wrote an article about > how easy AS3 was to learn and how n00bs should be learning it right out > the gate. > > Colin Moock has now remembered his roots and written what amounts to an > effective retraction of his original article. > > Anyone who looks at the archives of Flashcoders knows where I stand on > this issue. People who say all these features in AS3 are much better are > either > > 1. Experienced, talented coders, or people who came from other programming > languages. > > 2. See 1. > > Yes, it's really bad to put scripts on MovieClips or nested in some > timeline somewhere. But, it's also really good for some designer who just > needs to get some glorified banner out the door. > > Yes, it's questionable OOP to use _parent._parent, and it's certainly hard > to maintain, but it's also really good for some animator who just needs to > set the text of some TextField two levels up. > > Advanced coders often take their intelligence and knowledge for granted. I'll put myself in the "or people who came from other programming languages." camp. As such I find AS3 far easier than AS2, which seems very quircky by comparison. I think the main reason there appears to be some bad feeling about AS3 is that (naturally enough) people get familiar with things and don't like to see them change. My opinion is that for flash newbies AS3 is far simpler to learn than trying to get to grips with the idiosynchacies of AS2. I'll freely admit that if you have an easy animation job that's disposable, AS1 is the way to do it. Generally speaking I'm with Patrick not Moock on this one, but as you say it probably depends on your background where your sympathies lie. Paul > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
- Original Message - From: "Steven Sacks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Flash Coders List" Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 10:53 PM Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0 Everyone forgets their roots. Nobody remembers what it was like when they were first learning Flash and learning the basics of programming. Colin Moock forgot his roots when six months ago he wrote an article about how easy AS3 was to learn and how n00bs should be learning it right out the gate. Colin Moock has now remembered his roots and written what amounts to an effective retraction of his original article. Anyone who looks at the archives of Flashcoders knows where I stand on this issue. People who say all these features in AS3 are much better are either 1. Experienced, talented coders, or people who came from other programming languages. 2. See 1. Yes, it's really bad to put scripts on MovieClips or nested in some timeline somewhere. But, it's also really good for some designer who just needs to get some glorified banner out the door. Yes, it's questionable OOP to use _parent._parent, and it's certainly hard to maintain, but it's also really good for some animator who just needs to set the text of some TextField two levels up. Advanced coders often take their intelligence and knowledge for granted. I'll put myself in the "or people who came from other programming languages." camp. As such I find AS3 far easier than AS2, which seems very quircky by comparison. I think the main reason there appears to be some bad feeling about AS3 is that (naturally enough) people get familiar with things and don't like to see them change. My opinion is that for flash newbies AS3 is far simpler to learn than trying to get to grips with the idiosynchacies of AS2. I'll freely admit that if you have an easy animation job that's disposable, AS1 is the way to do it. Generally speaking I'm with Patrick not Moock on this one, but as you say it probably depends on your background where your sympathies lie. Paul ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Meinte van't Kruis Sent: Thu 7/17/2008 3:59 AM To: Flash Coders List Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0 >> I don't see why people make such a distinction between designer and >> programmer, I think, espessially in the flash environment, this distinction >> is very >> vague and you'll see alot of designers doing programmer work and vice versa. Because it all comes down to strengths. Designers make it look great. Developers make it work well. The vast majority of designers don't code well. And the vast majority of developers don't design well. Both areas can make respectable efforts at playing on the other field. And the higher ups don't care who does what sometimes as long as it looks respectable and works decently. My favorite "bitter drum" to beat is the one about developers using Photoshop and its dumbed down filters and layers effects to thrust the contrived copy-cat Web 2.0 "style" on us. :-) Maybe we should make Photoshop less of a toy for non-designers...it should require everyone to originate a concept and do thumbnail sketches with a pencil on paper first. Thoughts to chew on :-) Feel free to agree or disagree (althought I may not respond quickly because I'm conducting a tour group for 4 hours, YIPES!). Brian Mays ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
I don't see why people make such a distinction between designer and programmer, I think, espessially in the flash environment, this distinction is very vague and you'll see alot of designers doing programmer work and vice versa. That said I think that anyone who was used to as2 and the way things worked has to invest some time before becoming completely comfortable with the new language and everything that surrounds it. Most designers I see in my environment are actually quite cool with it and don't have any real problems, other than the discomfort of getting used to something and getting the feel for it, which takes time but doesn't neceserally mean that as3 is so much more complex that as2, I actually believe that in some ways as3 can be easier to work with than its predecessors. But that's just my view on things. On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:43 AM, daniele tassone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with this point. > > I use with no particular difficult c#, sql, asp.net, java, as3, as2, Flex > and i think that > as3 is better than as2/as1 because my skill give me the opportunity to work > with > a language that can be great (that is at "first" version ... so with a > little bit of problem). > > But designer that work with me are not happy, and for a more and more > project > i have difficult to use AS3 because the world don't use AS3; > > I think that onClipEvent and on(...) is important for designer like "class" > is important for programmer. > Introduce again this concept, or build a new product "for designer" is a > must for Adobe. > > daniele tassone > > > > > 2008/7/17 Beatrix Krümmer-Frau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > Juan Pablo Califano schrieb: > > > I agree with the article and with what Steve has pointed out already. > > > Even from an historical point of view, I think that what made the flash > > > platform ubiquitous was that many people started to create cool stuff > for > > > it. > > Hi, > > at this point i just want to remember what the pioneers, the masters of > > flash, did for the success of Flash. Remember Ray of Light from Yasuto > > Suga - the reason i started learning flash. With this "little" Banners > > and experimentations, Desigerns work and Programmers effords -> Flash > > grew and became what it is today. Flash needs both, also in the future, > > i hope Colin this is what you mean in your article. > > > > Beatrix > > > > > > > > _ > > Lustige Emoticons für Ihren Messenger! Hier kostenlos downloaden! > > > > > http://messenger.live.de/mein/___ > > Flashcoders mailing list > > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > -- M.A. van't Kruis http://www.malatze.nl/ ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
I agree with this point. I use with no particular difficult c#, sql, asp.net, java, as3, as2, Flex and i think that as3 is better than as2/as1 because my skill give me the opportunity to work with a language that can be great (that is at "first" version ... so with a little bit of problem). But designer that work with me are not happy, and for a more and more project i have difficult to use AS3 because the world don't use AS3; I think that onClipEvent and on(...) is important for designer like "class" is important for programmer. Introduce again this concept, or build a new product "for designer" is a must for Adobe. daniele tassone 2008/7/17 Beatrix Krümmer-Frau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Juan Pablo Califano schrieb: > > I agree with the article and with what Steve has pointed out already. > > Even from an historical point of view, I think that what made the flash > > platform ubiquitous was that many people started to create cool stuff for > > it. > Hi, > at this point i just want to remember what the pioneers, the masters of > flash, did for the success of Flash. Remember Ray of Light from Yasuto > Suga - the reason i started learning flash. With this "little" Banners > and experimentations, Desigerns work and Programmers effords -> Flash > grew and became what it is today. Flash needs both, also in the future, > i hope Colin this is what you mean in your article. > > Beatrix > > > > _ > Lustige Emoticons für Ihren Messenger! Hier kostenlos downloaden! > > http://messenger.live.de/mein/___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
Juan Pablo Califano schrieb: > I agree with the article and with what Steve has pointed out already. > Even from an historical point of view, I think that what made the flash > platform ubiquitous was that many people started to create cool stuff for > it. Hi, at this point i just want to remember what the pioneers, the masters of flash, did for the success of Flash. Remember Ray of Light from Yasuto Suga - the reason i started learning flash. With this "little" Banners and experimentations, Desigerns work and Programmers effords -> Flash grew and became what it is today. Flash needs both, also in the future, i hope Colin this is what you mean in your article. Beatrix _ Lustige Emoticons für Ihren Messenger! Hier kostenlos downloaden! http://messenger.live.de/mein/___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
I like the way Steven split this into "child's toy" and "adult's toy" because at heart: yes, Flash is indeed a toy. But like in all cases of everything, everywhere, things do need to grow. This big jump has been at the expense of the easy-of-use aspect of Flash, just as the introduction of Filters and Blend Modes were at the expense of efficiency. All children grow albeit at different rates, but they must grow if they want to survive. To keep the toy metaphor going, Lego started with a really simple ideal, and every piece fitted into every other. You could take multiple sets of Lego and just stick them all together in random fun. And then it got complex: things like Lego Technics came about, and the pieces got more complex. You could still do all the old stuff, but it took more doing and the previous versions still existed. I think Barry has a good point. If you do just like it as it is, use that version. Use AS2, for as long as it survives, and for as long as it takes to make the move. But if you want to grow, make the move. As a designer with little programming knowledge, I was terrified of the move. But the things being done with AS3 were way to cool. Hopefully, with the next release, Adobe will make things easier. This is the first release of the new VM and has a lot of things that can be improved. But it's opened a massive world online of really powerful tools and finally an engine efficient enough to drive some incredible websites. Ease of use is important, but I'd be disappointed if innovation and power took a back seat to it. Learn grow every other area of your life requires you to; why do you expect the web to be different? 2008/7/17 elibol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The only one that makes any sense is #2, and that is being addressed with > Loader.unloadAndStop(), except for the most part I'm kind of wary about > having the Loader class tear my loaded swfs a new one. I kind of agree with > Sacks when he more subtly articulates that this is for noobs. I was > expecting charges more along the lines of "Remove auto-declare stage > instances and ever having to declare stage instances and just use > getChildByName()." - but I guess that would be a charge against the Flash. > > Thats my two cents. > > H > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Kerry Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Steven Sacks wrote: >> >> > Flash used to be a toy, and, up until Flash 8, it still could beThe >> reason >> > you see so much BAD Flash is because it was SO EASY to use for even non >> > programmers. >> >> Steven has a point (even though I cut most of his post). Remember the days >> when Flash's nickname was "Skip-intro"? >> >> The Internet has changed, and will continue to change. It has gotten more >> sophisticated. Browsers have gotten more sophisticated. Users have gotten >> more sophisticated. To keep Flash/Flex as a premier Web development tool, >> it >> has to get more sophisticated, and its users must get more sophisticated. >> >> Having said that, I'd like to see Flash have drag-and-drop behaviors like >> Director has. In its first decade or so, Director followed a similar path >> as >> Flash. It started out as a simple animation tool with an easy-to-use >> language, and developed into a sophisticated programmer's tool. The >> introduction of drag-and-drop behaviors brought it back into the realm of >> the designer, while remaining a sophisticated programmer's tool. >> >> Of course, Macromedia made a number of blunders with Director/Shockwave >> that, I hope, will not be repeated by Adobe on Flash. Making it more >> sophisticated was not one of those blunders, though. >> >> Cordially, >> >> Kerry Thompson >> >> ___ >> Flashcoders mailing list >> Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com >> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders >> > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > -- Yet another Random Lines More usable than ever! www.therandomlines.com ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
The only one that makes any sense is #2, and that is being addressed with Loader.unloadAndStop(), except for the most part I'm kind of wary about having the Loader class tear my loaded swfs a new one. I kind of agree with Sacks when he more subtly articulates that this is for noobs. I was expecting charges more along the lines of "Remove auto-declare stage instances and ever having to declare stage instances and just use getChildByName()." - but I guess that would be a charge against the Flash. Thats my two cents. H On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Kerry Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steven Sacks wrote: > > > Flash used to be a toy, and, up until Flash 8, it still could beThe > reason > > you see so much BAD Flash is because it was SO EASY to use for even non > > programmers. > > Steven has a point (even though I cut most of his post). Remember the days > when Flash's nickname was "Skip-intro"? > > The Internet has changed, and will continue to change. It has gotten more > sophisticated. Browsers have gotten more sophisticated. Users have gotten > more sophisticated. To keep Flash/Flex as a premier Web development tool, > it > has to get more sophisticated, and its users must get more sophisticated. > > Having said that, I'd like to see Flash have drag-and-drop behaviors like > Director has. In its first decade or so, Director followed a similar path > as > Flash. It started out as a simple animation tool with an easy-to-use > language, and developed into a sophisticated programmer's tool. The > introduction of drag-and-drop behaviors brought it back into the realm of > the designer, while remaining a sophisticated programmer's tool. > > Of course, Macromedia made a number of blunders with Director/Shockwave > that, I hope, will not be repeated by Adobe on Flash. Making it more > sophisticated was not one of those blunders, though. > > Cordially, > > Kerry Thompson > > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
Steven Sacks wrote: > Flash used to be a toy, and, up until Flash 8, it still could beThe reason > you see so much BAD Flash is because it was SO EASY to use for even non > programmers. Steven has a point (even though I cut most of his post). Remember the days when Flash's nickname was "Skip-intro"? The Internet has changed, and will continue to change. It has gotten more sophisticated. Browsers have gotten more sophisticated. Users have gotten more sophisticated. To keep Flash/Flex as a premier Web development tool, it has to get more sophisticated, and its users must get more sophisticated. Having said that, I'd like to see Flash have drag-and-drop behaviors like Director has. In its first decade or so, Director followed a similar path as Flash. It started out as a simple animation tool with an easy-to-use language, and developed into a sophisticated programmer's tool. The introduction of drag-and-drop behaviors brought it back into the realm of the designer, while remaining a sophisticated programmer's tool. Of course, Macromedia made a number of blunders with Director/Shockwave that, I hope, will not be repeated by Adobe on Flash. Making it more sophisticated was not one of those blunders, though. Cordially, Kerry Thompson ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
Hi, >>> If you don't care about learning the code, why would you care about whether it's AS3 or not? To me that point is missing from Colin's argument, Adobe made the effort to include 2 VM's so old content would be supported. Just us AS2. Am I missing something? >>> I think so... From the article, it's clear the he's not saying, "let's go back to on/onclipevent" handlers, but rather make it as easier for people who are not programmers and / or are not interested in learning about OO, inheritance, packages and stuff (which is a respectable position, IMO). What he says is, give these people an easier interface in the authoring tool and behind the scenes convert that input into AS 3 code. Which I think is perfectly reasonable and not even technically complex to implement. So, if you're a coder and you want to have more control and make things more OO, neat, clean and such, great. But you shouldn't be forced to go that way for adding even the simplest functionality. I agree with the article and with what Steve has pointed out already. Even from an historical point of view, I think that what made the flash platform ubiquitous was that many people started to create cool stuff for it. And that was possible because there was a relatively low entry barrier. Think about Java on the client side. How many applets do you find around nowadays? Was it because the Java technology was inferior to Flash? I think not, and probably it's still (and certainly was) the opposite way. But to build an applet, you needed to have a fair knowledge of programming. And even then, truth is, especially for the UI part, you can build something that looks way better, in less time, without having necessarily formal knowledge on programming. Of course, when you start to build more complex stuff, things will necessarily get more complex and having better tools and following good pratices will save you time and allow you to even make it possible in the first place. But if you want to do something simple in the simplest possible way, why not? Cheers Juan Pablo Califano 2008/7/16, Barry Hannah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I agree with you to a point Steven, but speaking for myself if I may. > I used to be a "child" as you put it - to the extent that all Flash > developers/designers were back in the day. Keeping up with the code side > of things as they have developed - beyond the expectations of everyone - > has been interesting (I don't have a programming background). We've all > had to grow, as developers and users have expected more from the tools > and the applications made with them. Call it progress, professional > development, whatever. If you don't keep up in this industry you're > toast (or destined to make banners). > > I wonder why someone who likes their timeline paradigm would even bother > with AS3, why not just stick to AS2? You can still code for player 9 and > take advantage of fullscreen or HD. Might not last long but for now why > not? If you don't care about learning the code, why would you care about > whether it's AS3 or not? > > To me that point is missing from Colin's argument, Adobe made the effort > to include 2 VM's so old content would be supported. Just us AS2. Am I > missing something? > > Barry. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven > Sacks > Sent: Thursday, 17 July 2008 12:18 p.m. > To: Flash Coders List > Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0 > > Ashim D'Silva wrote: > > Flash is not a toy. You can't pick it up, with no prior knowledge, and > expect to have a app 2 hours later. > > --- > > This is where we part ways. Flash used to be a toy, and, up until Flash > 8, it still could be. Now, with AS3, Flash has ceased to be a child's > toy and is now only a toy for adults. Child, in this sense, means > non-programmer who is more comfortable with design and timeline > animation, and adult meaning seasoned programmer. > > The notion that Flash is not (or was ever) meant to be easy enough to > just pick up and make something really quick is diametrically opposed to > reality. The reason you see so much BAD Flash is because it was SO EASY > to use for even non programmers. > > It's the same with all the bad HTML. It's like saying that AJAX means > that the web browser is no longer a toy. The difference here is that > browsers still accept "noob" HTML coding standards (according to people > who are AJAX/CSS experts), but Actionscript 3 gives you zero latitude. > > Flash is, at its _root, a vector animation tool with a scripting > language tacked on. To say that a vector animat
RE: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
I agree with you to a point Steven, but speaking for myself if I may. I used to be a "child" as you put it - to the extent that all Flash developers/designers were back in the day. Keeping up with the code side of things as they have developed - beyond the expectations of everyone - has been interesting (I don't have a programming background). We've all had to grow, as developers and users have expected more from the tools and the applications made with them. Call it progress, professional development, whatever. If you don't keep up in this industry you're toast (or destined to make banners). I wonder why someone who likes their timeline paradigm would even bother with AS3, why not just stick to AS2? You can still code for player 9 and take advantage of fullscreen or HD. Might not last long but for now why not? If you don't care about learning the code, why would you care about whether it's AS3 or not? To me that point is missing from Colin's argument, Adobe made the effort to include 2 VM's so old content would be supported. Just us AS2. Am I missing something? Barry. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Sacks Sent: Thursday, 17 July 2008 12:18 p.m. To: Flash Coders List Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0 Ashim D'Silva wrote: Flash is not a toy. You can't pick it up, with no prior knowledge, and expect to have a app 2 hours later. --- This is where we part ways. Flash used to be a toy, and, up until Flash 8, it still could be. Now, with AS3, Flash has ceased to be a child's toy and is now only a toy for adults. Child, in this sense, means non-programmer who is more comfortable with design and timeline animation, and adult meaning seasoned programmer. The notion that Flash is not (or was ever) meant to be easy enough to just pick up and make something really quick is diametrically opposed to reality. The reason you see so much BAD Flash is because it was SO EASY to use for even non programmers. It's the same with all the bad HTML. It's like saying that AJAX means that the web browser is no longer a toy. The difference here is that browsers still accept "noob" HTML coding standards (according to people who are AJAX/CSS experts), but Actionscript 3 gives you zero latitude. Flash is, at its _root, a vector animation tool with a scripting language tacked on. To say that a vector animation tool is not a toy is pretty far off the mark. Actionscript 3 takes Flash away from the realm of the artist and into the realm of the programmer. It makes simple things harder (regardless if it's better, it's still harder for non-coders) and is thus much less appealing to its original core audience, and a VAST MAJORITY of the people who use it. Sorry, but good Flash coders are hard to find. You just think otherwise because you run in these circles. For every person participating in online Flash development communities, there are thousands who aren't. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Scanned by Bizo Email Filter ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
Ashim D'Silva wrote: Flash is not a toy. You can't pick it up, with no prior knowledge, and expect to have a app 2 hours later. --- This is where we part ways. Flash used to be a toy, and, up until Flash 8, it still could be. Now, with AS3, Flash has ceased to be a child's toy and is now only a toy for adults. Child, in this sense, means non-programmer who is more comfortable with design and timeline animation, and adult meaning seasoned programmer. The notion that Flash is not (or was ever) meant to be easy enough to just pick up and make something really quick is diametrically opposed to reality. The reason you see so much BAD Flash is because it was SO EASY to use for even non programmers. It's the same with all the bad HTML. It's like saying that AJAX means that the web browser is no longer a toy. The difference here is that browsers still accept "noob" HTML coding standards (according to people who are AJAX/CSS experts), but Actionscript 3 gives you zero latitude. Flash is, at its _root, a vector animation tool with a scripting language tacked on. To say that a vector animation tool is not a toy is pretty far off the mark. Actionscript 3 takes Flash away from the realm of the artist and into the realm of the programmer. It makes simple things harder (regardless if it's better, it's still harder for non-coders) and is thus much less appealing to its original core audience, and a VAST MAJORITY of the people who use it. Sorry, but good Flash coders are hard to find. You just think otherwise because you run in these circles. For every person participating in online Flash development communities, there are thousands who aren't. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
I love flash and have been using it since 5. And although at the time, it was almost possible to drag and drop what you needed to get something going, we know there were a host of disadvantages that came with everything being so dynamic and code being everywhere. So as Flash has gotten stricter, I've had to learn more and more about coding practices and OOP of course, and let me say, it's brilliant. Let me say straight up, I'm a designer, not a programmer so much however, if you're going to work with Flash you really NEED to be a bit of both. Flash is not a toy. You can't pick it up, with no prior knowledge, and expect to have a app 2 hours later. And I'll gladly put in the work to learn for the amount of power flash is beginning to put at our disposal. 3D, EFFICIENT filters and blend modes, pixel level controls - if I was to chose between a system that works well, and a system that's easy to use, I would much rather have the former - shopping online should be easy, building an online shop: not so. And as for flash banners: glorified or otherwise; I detest them and if it were possible to burn them, I would. Ashim -- Yet another Random Lines More usable than ever! www.therandomlines.com 2008/7/17 Steven Sacks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Everyone forgets their roots. Nobody remembers what it was like when they > were first learning Flash and learning the basics of programming. > > Colin Moock forgot his roots when six months ago he wrote an article about > how easy AS3 was to learn and how n00bs should be learning it right out the > gate. > > Colin Moock has now remembered his roots and written what amounts to an > effective retraction of his original article. > > Anyone who looks at the archives of Flashcoders knows where I stand on this > issue. People who say all these features in AS3 are much better are either > > 1. Experienced, talented coders, or people who came from other programming > languages. > > 2. See 1. > > Yes, it's really bad to put scripts on MovieClips or nested in some timeline > somewhere. But, it's also really good for some designer who just needs to > get some glorified banner out the door. > > Yes, it's questionable OOP to use _parent._parent, and it's certainly hard > to maintain, but it's also really good for some animator who just needs to > set the text of some TextField two levels up. > > Advanced coders often take their intelligence and knowledge for granted. > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
The more I read here, the more I am on the fence. On the one hand, I use FlexBuilder every day and love AS3 as a language. But at the same time I think Steven has a good point here. In the end I actually think Colin is 'mostly' correct with his post. What we need is for the tools to support simplifying usage of the language. Let the developers creating RIAs use the power of the language, let the designers creating simple interactions use the simplicity of a tool. The problem here is that Flash CS3 falls short of simplifying, while FlexBuilder does a great job of giving developers access to the power of the language. Steve Mathews Senior Team Lead Flypaper Studio, Inc. 2999 North 44th Street, Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85018 www.flypaper.com On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Steven Sacks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Everyone forgets their roots. Nobody remembers what it was like when they > were first learning Flash and learning the basics of programming. > > Colin Moock forgot his roots when six months ago he wrote an article about > how easy AS3 was to learn and how n00bs should be learning it right out the > gate. > > Colin Moock has now remembered his roots and written what amounts to an > effective retraction of his original article. > > Anyone who looks at the archives of Flashcoders knows where I stand on this > issue. People who say all these features in AS3 are much better are either > > 1. Experienced, talented coders, or people who came from other programming > languages. > > 2. See 1. > > Yes, it's really bad to put scripts on MovieClips or nested in some timeline > somewhere. But, it's also really good for some designer who just needs to > get some glorified banner out the door. > > Yes, it's questionable OOP to use _parent._parent, and it's certainly hard > to maintain, but it's also really good for some animator who just needs to > set the text of some TextField two levels up. > > Advanced coders often take their intelligence and knowledge for granted. > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
Everyone forgets their roots. Nobody remembers what it was like when they were first learning Flash and learning the basics of programming. Colin Moock forgot his roots when six months ago he wrote an article about how easy AS3 was to learn and how n00bs should be learning it right out the gate. Colin Moock has now remembered his roots and written what amounts to an effective retraction of his original article. Anyone who looks at the archives of Flashcoders knows where I stand on this issue. People who say all these features in AS3 are much better are either 1. Experienced, talented coders, or people who came from other programming languages. 2. See 1. Yes, it's really bad to put scripts on MovieClips or nested in some timeline somewhere. But, it's also really good for some designer who just needs to get some glorified banner out the door. Yes, it's questionable OOP to use _parent._parent, and it's certainly hard to maintain, but it's also really good for some animator who just needs to set the text of some TextField two levels up. Advanced coders often take their intelligence and knowledge for granted. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
I'm going to do a switcheroo. Excellent post Patrick, I'm in agreement
more and more after reading this and previous debunking Moock's points.
Moock seems to be really stretching his points in order to make a viral
blog post. You're making more sense than he is.
Jason Merrill
Bank of America
Enterprise Technology & Global Risk L&LD
Instructional Technology & Media
Join the Bank of America Flash Platform Developer Community
Are you a Bank of America associate interested in innovative learning
ideas and technologies?
Check out our internal GT&O Innovative Learning Blog & subscribe.
>>-Original Message-
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
>>Of Patrick Matte | BLITZ
>>Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 4:17 PM
>>To: Flash Coders List
>>Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
>>
>>I've always admired Colin Moock, but after reading those 9
>>points, I'm not sure he still has all that credibility anymore...
>>
>> >1. The removal of on()/onClipEvent() from Flash CS3
>>makes creating
>>> simple interactivity hard.
>>
>>Who would want to add an onClipEvent on a movieclip anymore?
>>I haven't done that since like... flash 5 or 6... You're much
>>better off writing function onEnterFrame(){} instead of
>>onClipEvent(enterFrame){}... And I'm so glad AS3 got rid of
>>that onLoad method...
>>
>>>2. Getting rid of loaded .swf files is hard.
>>That is like the only point in this list that makes sense.
>>
>>>3. Casting DisplayObject.parent makes controlling parent movie
>>> clips hard.
>>Not sure what that means but I never ever use parent... its
>>just bad OOP... But I guess they could have casted parent as
>>Sprite. And also maybe set Sprite as a dynamic class like MovieClip?
>>
>>>4. The removal of getURL() makes linking hard.
>>Yeah well it's just a little more complicated but when you
>>know how to do it, it's just fine.
>>
>>>5. The removal of loadMovie() makes loading .swf files
>>and images hard.
>>Haven't used loadmovie since flash 6. In flash 7, use
>>MovieClipLoader instead, it's much better. Now why does AS3
>>use Loader instead of MovieClipLoader... that I don't know...
>>
>>>6. ActionScript 3.0's additional errors make coding cumbersome.
>>Hmm well those errors are supposed to help you... But I admit
>>that some of the errors could be a little more explicit on
>>what is wrong... If I'm trying to access a property that is
>>undefined, can Flash please tell me which one ?
>>
>>>7. Referring to library symbols dynamically is unintuitive.
>>No it's not. I really like doing addChild(new RedCircle())
>>instead of attchMovieClip("RedCircle", "circle",
>>getNextHighestDepth())
>>
>>>8. Adding custom functionality to manually created text
>>fields, to
>>> all movie clips, or to all buttons is cumbersome.
>>I don't think this is really relevant. Nobody wants all
>>classes to be dynamic do they? Althought, I admit it could be
>>nice to extend TextField...
>>
>>>9. The removal of duplicateMovieClip() makes cloning a MovieClip
>>> instance (really) hard.
>>Duplicate movieclips ? Geez, I remember using that back in
>>the day, I would put a button off stage and then duplicate it
>>to create multiple instances of it. But you're much better
>>off using attachMovie if you're working with AS2.
>>
>>
>>BLITZ | Patrick Matte - 310-551-0200 x214
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
>>Of Jordan L. Chilcott
>>Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 12:03 PM
>>To: Flash Coders List
>>Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
>>
>>Let's be fair: I'm not looking to argue. I have a wife for that. :)
>>
>>I intend to state my issues, but it may have to wait a couple
>>of days because I'm sure most, if not all, of you are in a
>>working situation and faced with some slimy brown stuff
>>rolling downhill towards you. I was going to type a whole
>>thing before this happened, but let me just start for now by
>>saying that having programmed in Flash among other things,
>>that a lot of things I have issues against were, in my mind,
>>the cause of a lot of programming deficiencies and obstacles
>
RE: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
I've always admired Colin Moock, but after reading those 9 points, I'm not sure
he still has all that credibility anymore...
>1. The removal of on()/onClipEvent() from Flash CS3 makes creating
> simple interactivity hard.
Who would want to add an onClipEvent on a movieclip anymore? I haven't done
that since like... flash 5 or 6... You're much better off writing function
onEnterFrame(){} instead of onClipEvent(enterFrame){}... And I'm so glad AS3
got rid of that onLoad method...
>2. Getting rid of loaded .swf files is hard.
That is like the only point in this list that makes sense.
>3. Casting DisplayObject.parent makes controlling parent movie
> clips hard.
Not sure what that means but I never ever use parent... its just bad OOP... But
I guess they could have casted parent as Sprite. And also maybe set Sprite as a
dynamic class like MovieClip?
>4. The removal of getURL() makes linking hard.
Yeah well it's just a little more complicated but when you know how to do it,
it's just fine.
>5. The removal of loadMovie() makes loading .swf files and images hard.
Haven't used loadmovie since flash 6. In flash 7, use MovieClipLoader instead,
it's much better. Now why does AS3 use Loader instead of MovieClipLoader...
that I don't know...
>6. ActionScript 3.0's additional errors make coding cumbersome.
Hmm well those errors are supposed to help you... But I admit that some of the
errors could be a little more explicit on what is wrong... If I'm trying to
access a property that is undefined, can Flash please tell me which one ?
>7. Referring to library symbols dynamically is unintuitive.
No it's not. I really like doing addChild(new RedCircle()) instead of
attchMovieClip("RedCircle", "circle", getNextHighestDepth())
>8. Adding custom functionality to manually created text fields, to
> all movie clips, or to all buttons is cumbersome.
I don't think this is really relevant. Nobody wants all classes to be dynamic
do they? Althought, I admit it could be nice to extend TextField...
>9. The removal of duplicateMovieClip() makes cloning a MovieClip
> instance (really) hard.
Duplicate movieclips ? Geez, I remember using that back in the day, I would put
a button off stage and then duplicate it to create multiple instances of it.
But you're much better off using attachMovie if you're working with AS2.
BLITZ | Patrick Matte - 310-551-0200 x214
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jordan L.
Chilcott
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 12:03 PM
To: Flash Coders List
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
Let's be fair: I'm not looking to argue. I have a wife for that. :)
I intend to state my issues, but it may have to wait a couple of days
because I'm sure most, if not all, of you are in a working situation and
faced with some slimy brown stuff rolling downhill towards you. I was
going to type a whole thing before this happened, but let me just start
for now by saying that having programmed in Flash among other things,
that a lot of things I have issues against were, in my mind, the cause
of a lot of programming deficiencies and obstacles within Flash.
I intend to elaborate further... and keep in mind that this is, again,
just my opinion.
jord
Kerry Thompson wrote:
> Jord wrote:
>
>
>> Let me rephrase this: I hardly agree with MOST of the issues.
>>
>
> Fair enough. It would be a valuable contribution to the discussion if you
> told us which issues you have, issues with, and why.
>
> I personally am not in a position to argue with Colin Moock, but I do enjoy
> a good debate, as long as it illuminates issues.
>
>
>
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
Let's be fair: I'm not looking to argue. I have a wife for that. :) I intend to state my issues, but it may have to wait a couple of days because I'm sure most, if not all, of you are in a working situation and faced with some slimy brown stuff rolling downhill towards you. I was going to type a whole thing before this happened, but let me just start for now by saying that having programmed in Flash among other things, that a lot of things I have issues against were, in my mind, the cause of a lot of programming deficiencies and obstacles within Flash. I intend to elaborate further... and keep in mind that this is, again, just my opinion. jord Kerry Thompson wrote: Jord wrote: Let me rephrase this: I hardly agree with MOST of the issues. Fair enough. It would be a valuable contribution to the discussion if you told us which issues you have, issues with, and why. I personally am not in a position to argue with Colin Moock, but I do enjoy a good debate, as long as it illuminates issues. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
Jord wrote: > Let me rephrase this: I hardly agree with MOST of the issues. Fair enough. It would be a valuable contribution to the discussion if you told us which issues you have, issues with, and why. I personally am not in a position to argue with Colin Moock, but I do enjoy a good debate, as long as it illuminates issues. Cordially, Kerry Thompson ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
>>Let me rephrase this: I hardly agree with MOST of the issues. >>Of course I did... I don't deny his points. I just don't agree with them all. >>We're talking about opinions here. I'm no more incorrect as the next guy, including Colin. Agreed. Well, actually, I guess thinking a little deeper on the points (maybe more than I should), I disagree with his charges #1, 7, and 9 (if for #9 you can use the new operator, instead of cloning, - cloning is not something I ever did anyway), but agree with the rest. Jason Merrill Bank of America Enterprise Technology & Global Risk L&LD Instructional Technology & Media Join the Bank of America Flash Platform Developer Community Are you a Bank of America associate interested in innovative learning ideas and technologies? Check out our internal GT&O Innovative Learning Blog & subscribe. >>-Original Message- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>Of Jordan L. Chilcott >>Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 2:28 PM >>To: Flash Coders List >>Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0 >> >> >>jord >> >>Matt S. wrote: >>> Even the garbage collection and unload movie issues? >>> >>> .m >>> >>> >>> >>___ >>Flashcoders mailing list >>Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com >>http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders >> ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
Of course I did... I don't deny his points. I just don't agree with them all. We're talking about opinions here. I'm no more incorrect as the next guy, including Colin. jord Merrill, Jason wrote: I'm on the other side of this... I hardly agree with any of these points. Are you serious? Did you read the article? ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
Let me rephrase this: I hardly agree with MOST of the issues. jord Matt S. wrote: Even the garbage collection and unload movie issues? .m ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
>>I'm on the other side of this... I hardly agree with any of >>these points. Are you serious? Did you read the article? Jason Merrill Bank of America Enterprise Technology & Global Risk L&LD Instructional Technology & Media Join the Bank of America Flash Platform Developer Community Are you a Bank of America associate interested in innovative learning ideas and technologies? Check out our internal GT&O Innovative Learning Blog & subscribe. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
Even the garbage collection and unload movie issues? .m On 7/16/08, Jordan L. Chilcott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm on the other side of this... I hardly agree with any of these points. > > jord > > Brian Mays wrote: >> Awesome. Thanks. This reinforces some points I've been making to so >> colleagues. >> >> Brian Mays >> >> >> On 7/15/08 3:06 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> hi all, >>> i just published an article called "Charges Against ActionScript 3.0" >>> covering the things people don't like about ActionScript 3.0. >>> >>> it's posted on O'Reilly's InsideRIA, here: >>> http://www.insideria.com/2008/07/the-charges-against-actionscri.html >>> >>> The article discusses the following issues: >>> >>> 1. The removal of on()/onClipEvent() from Flash CS3 makes creating >>> simple interactivity hard. >>> 2. Getting rid of loaded .swf files is hard. >>> 3. Casting DisplayObject.parent makes controlling parent movie clips >>> hard. >>> 4. The removal of getURL() makes linking hard. >>> 5. The removal of loadMovie() makes loading .swf files and images >>> hard. >>> 6. ActionScript 3.0's additional errors make coding cumbersome. >>> 7. Referring to library symbols dynamically is unintuitive. >>> 8. Adding custom functionality to manually created text fields, to >>> all movie clips, or to all buttons is cumbersome. >>> 9. The removal of duplicateMovieClip() makes cloning a MovieClip >>> instance (really) hard. >>> >>> if you have comments, please leave them on the article so i can respond >>> if necessary. >>> >>> colin >>> > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
I'm on the other side of this... I hardly agree with any of these points. jord Brian Mays wrote: Awesome. Thanks. This reinforces some points I've been making to so colleagues. Brian Mays On 7/15/08 3:06 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: hi all, i just published an article called "Charges Against ActionScript 3.0" covering the things people don't like about ActionScript 3.0. it's posted on O'Reilly's InsideRIA, here: http://www.insideria.com/2008/07/the-charges-against-actionscri.html The article discusses the following issues: 1. The removal of on()/onClipEvent() from Flash CS3 makes creating simple interactivity hard. 2. Getting rid of loaded .swf files is hard. 3. Casting DisplayObject.parent makes controlling parent movie clips hard. 4. The removal of getURL() makes linking hard. 5. The removal of loadMovie() makes loading .swf files and images hard. 6. ActionScript 3.0's additional errors make coding cumbersome. 7. Referring to library symbols dynamically is unintuitive. 8. Adding custom functionality to manually created text fields, to all movie clips, or to all buttons is cumbersome. 9. The removal of duplicateMovieClip() makes cloning a MovieClip instance (really) hard. if you have comments, please leave them on the article so i can respond if necessary. colin ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
Awesome. Thanks. This reinforces some points I've been making to so colleagues. Brian Mays On 7/15/08 3:06 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hi all, > i just published an article called "Charges Against ActionScript 3.0" > covering the things people don't like about ActionScript 3.0. > > it's posted on O'Reilly's InsideRIA, here: > http://www.insideria.com/2008/07/the-charges-against-actionscri.html > > The article discusses the following issues: > > 1. The removal of on()/onClipEvent() from Flash CS3 makes creating > simple interactivity hard. > 2. Getting rid of loaded .swf files is hard. > 3. Casting DisplayObject.parent makes controlling parent movie clips > hard. > 4. The removal of getURL() makes linking hard. > 5. The removal of loadMovie() makes loading .swf files and images hard. > 6. ActionScript 3.0's additional errors make coding cumbersome. > 7. Referring to library symbols dynamically is unintuitive. > 8. Adding custom functionality to manually created text fields, to > all movie clips, or to all buttons is cumbersome. > 9. The removal of duplicateMovieClip() makes cloning a MovieClip > instance (really) hard. > > if you have comments, please leave them on the article so i can respond > if necessary. > > colin > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
Great article Colin, thanks for your work! On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 1:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hi all, > i just published an article called "Charges Against ActionScript 3.0" > covering the things people don't like about ActionScript 3.0. > > it's posted on O'Reilly's InsideRIA, here: > http://www.insideria.com/2008/07/the-charges-against-actionscri.html > > The article discusses the following issues: > >1. The removal of on()/onClipEvent() from Flash CS3 makes creating > simple interactivity hard. >2. Getting rid of loaded .swf files is hard. >3. Casting DisplayObject.parent makes controlling parent movie clips > hard. >4. The removal of getURL() makes linking hard. >5. The removal of loadMovie() makes loading .swf files and images hard. >6. ActionScript 3.0's additional errors make coding cumbersome. >7. Referring to library symbols dynamically is unintuitive. >8. Adding custom functionality to manually created text fields, to > all movie clips, or to all buttons is cumbersome. >9. The removal of duplicateMovieClip() makes cloning a MovieClip > instance (really) hard. > > if you have comments, please leave them on the article so i can respond if > necessary. > > colin > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
[Flashcoders] The Charges Against ActionScript 3.0
hi all, i just published an article called "Charges Against ActionScript 3.0" covering the things people don't like about ActionScript 3.0. it's posted on O'Reilly's InsideRIA, here: http://www.insideria.com/2008/07/the-charges-against-actionscri.html The article discusses the following issues: 1. The removal of on()/onClipEvent() from Flash CS3 makes creating simple interactivity hard. 2. Getting rid of loaded .swf files is hard. 3. Casting DisplayObject.parent makes controlling parent movie clips hard. 4. The removal of getURL() makes linking hard. 5. The removal of loadMovie() makes loading .swf files and images hard. 6. ActionScript 3.0's additional errors make coding cumbersome. 7. Referring to library symbols dynamically is unintuitive. 8. Adding custom functionality to manually created text fields, to all movie clips, or to all buttons is cumbersome. 9. The removal of duplicateMovieClip() makes cloning a MovieClip instance (really) hard. if you have comments, please leave them on the article so i can respond if necessary. colin ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
