Re: [Flashcoders] Actionscript 2 - suitable for designers?
If you are comfortable writing AS1 code on the timeline, switching to AS2 should be painless. On the timeline, the only differences will be case sensitivity and type strictness, both of which can only make your code easier to debug and maintain. Then, if at some point you want to learn how to use classes in AS2, you will at least be familiar with these requirements. On Mar 27, 2006, at 10:49 AM, Zeh Fernando wrote: I agree with what's already been said - and just wanted to say that one of the big advantages you may find with AS 2 is the debugging features you get by typecasting, and also the re-usability of classes. Once you really get into it and start creating your own libraries, your efficiency level has a greater chance to gain momentum that if you had stuck with AS1. However, many people, depending on the types of projects they work on, can stick with AS1 and be perfectly happy and productive. Oh yes - good point, I forgot that. Having type casting and stronger debugging when compiling is one of the best advantage of AS2 -- it's sad not all of it applies to timeline code (ie, accessing stuff that doesn't exist), even when using AS2. I do use AS2 syntax all the time when writing code for my movieclips inside flash, but mostly because I'm used to it. Coming to think of it, the best approach I could expect of Flash 9+ would be of almost totally killing timeline code, but giving a way of automatically attaching a class to a movieclip without actually having to create any external .AS file and without having to load the class on a given frame and whatnot - like editing inside of a movieclip while you are in fact editing its class, not its timeline code. That'd be cool. - Zeh ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Actionscript 2 - suitable for designers?
I agree with what's already been said - and just wanted to say that one of the big advantages you may find with AS 2 is the debugging features you get by typecasting, and also the re-usability of classes. Once you really get into it and start creating your own libraries, your efficiency level has a greater chance to gain momentum that if you had stuck with AS1. However, many people, depending on the types of projects they work on, can stick with AS1 and be perfectly happy and productive. Oh yes - good point, I forgot that. Having type casting and stronger debugging when compiling is one of the best advantage of AS2 -- it's sad not all of it applies to timeline code (ie, accessing stuff that doesn't exist), even when using AS2. I do use AS2 syntax all the time when writing code for my movieclips inside flash, but mostly because I'm used to it. Coming to think of it, the best approach I could expect of Flash 9+ would be of almost totally killing timeline code, but giving a way of automatically attaching a class to a movieclip without actually having to create any external .AS file and without having to load the class on a given frame and whatnot - like editing inside of a movieclip while you are in fact editing its class, not its timeline code. That'd be cool. - Zeh ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Actionscript 2 - suitable for designers?
Knowing AS2 well would also make it easier to learn architectural frameworks for Flash applications (ARP and Cairngorn). These allow you to fully experience the benefits of OOP, and you get the added bonus of a developer community around any given framework to answer specific questions. Mike ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Actionscript 2 - suitable for designers?
I prefer to do most everything in code, but like you the sights I've done aren't RIAs or even close. For that reason I stuck with AS1, until recently. When I look back at the sites and how they were constructed, I'm astounded at how much cleaner my sites would be, how much time, effort, and debugging could have been saved, by using AS2 features. Once you know how to write classes for the things you do often and how to use the classes developed by others, you'll find that even if you don't need the all of the oop features (inheritance, interfaces, polymorphism, etc...), using classes is worth the trip to AS2. On 3/27/06, Kevin Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I hope this isn't off-topic but I've been struggling to find the answer, and > this list has been a great help to me over the years. > > I'm a designer, but often code in Flash. I'm not building huge RIAs, usually > just adding small little bits of interactivity to sites, and building some > multimedia interfaces and gathering data from XML etc... Nothing hardcore, > but a bit more that just tinkering with AS. > > Up until now I've always used AS1, and though I've bought Colin Moock's AS2 > book, it seems like a bit leap to make, and from what I've read it seems like > many of the advantages of AS2 are in having proper OO, and more manageable > code for large projects. > > I'm wondering if AS2 offers any advantages to me, or if sticking with AS1 > would be better. Is AS2 (and now 3) the natural progression of Flash coding, > is there even a future for AS1, all the useful libraries seem to be AS2 only > these days too, perhaps that alone is a reason to switch. I'm unsure as to > what path I'm supposed to be on. > > Any advice you could give me would be appreciated, > > - Kevin > ___ > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > To change your subscription options or search the archive: > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software > Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training > http://www.figleaf.com > http://training.figleaf.com > -- Weldon Mac Donald ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Actionscript 2 - suitable for designers?
I agree with what's already been said - and just wanted to say that one
of the big advantages you may find with AS 2 is the debugging features
you get by typecasting, and also the re-usability of classes. Once you
really get into it and start creating your own libraries, your
efficiency level has a greater chance to gain momentum that if you had
stuck with AS1. However, many people, depending on the types of
projects they work on, can stick with AS1 and be perfectly happy and
productive.
Jason Merrill | E-Learning Solutions | icfconsulting.com
>>-Original Message-
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:flashcoders-
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Zeh Fernando
>>Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 10:28 AM
>>To: Flashcoders mailing list
>>Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Actionscript 2 - suitable for designers?
>>
>>> I'm wondering if AS2 offers any advantages to me, or if sticking
with AS1
>>> would be better. Is AS2 (and now 3) the natural progression of Flash
>>> coding,
>>> is there even a future for AS1, all the useful libraries seem to be
AS2
>>> only
>>> these days too, perhaps that alone is a reason to switch. I'm unsure
as to
>>> what path I'm supposed to be on.
>>> Any advice you could give me would be appreciated,
>>
>>Ok, here's my 'designer who codes' or 'coder who designs' ("jack of
all
>>trades, master of none") point of view:
>>
>>AS2 is the right way to go. However, knowing when to apply each
different
>>approach (doing everything on classes, doing everything inside the
flash
>>movie, and all between) is the real issue.
>>
>>If I want to create something quick, I usually create a movieclip with
the
>>functionality I desire. It kind of mimics a class, or a component, but
it's
>>neither; it's just a movieclip where I can quickly change something on
the
>>code or on the graphics. Like a "smartclip" (heh). It's on this case
that
>>some of the best OOP features (such as design patterns) also comes to
help.
>>I treat like movieclip as a 'black box' (like a class..) so they do
some
>>minimum talk to each other, trying to be standalone on what they do.
>>
>>However, under AS2, the 'right' alternative would be create a new
class and
>>attach it to the movieclip. But I've grown tired of that approach,
since I
>>have to keep creating a lot of classes just to modify the
functionality of,
>>say, one menu. And I'm not building apps; I'm building 'designer'
websites
>>(see samples at zeh.com.br). This doesn't mean I build them like crap,
or
>>that they have 'loosy' requirements when compared to an app; but it
means I
>>build them quickly (taking around one month) and intelligently (or at
least
>>I like to believe), not over-designing and making sure everything's on
a
>>class and properly commented with javadocs and with UML diagrams and
>>whatnot. It also means I almost never reuse code between websites;
each new
>>menu is a new menu, because it works in a much different way than the
>>previous menu I built. That's why I can't just create generic classes
for
>>everything and extend from there; I'd have way too many classes.
>>
>>I do, however, use classes for all kinds of semi-generic functionality
I
>>need; reading XMLs, tweening, localization, trigonometry - it's all
done on
>>classes. When it comes down to real-life work, obviously there's no
point in
>>reinventing the wheel, so I try to build these generic tools that then
I can
>>apply on my work. But that's the limit. The rest is too specific to be
>>reused.
>>
>>I know this approach will be not be seen lightly on the eyes of more
purist
>>coders. However, I like to believe my line of work requires a
different set
>>of development skills - yes, I do try to make my code and design as
>>maintainable as possible and as easy to understand as possible (ie,
full of
>>comments, not using spaghetti code, etc), but breaking eveything into
tiny
>>classes just won't work, it'll be too much effort for too little
advantages.
>>Like I said, I believe finding the correct balance between the two
>>approaches is the best answer - and there's no easy way to do it, it
depends
>>a lot on the kind of work you're trying to do, how long do you want it
to
>>live, how maintainable you want it to be, etc.
>>
>>IMO.
>>
>>- Zeh
>>
>>___
>>Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
>>To change your sub
Re: [Flashcoders] Actionscript 2 - suitable for designers?
I'm wondering if AS2 offers any advantages to me, or if sticking with AS1
would be better. Is AS2 (and now 3) the natural progression of Flash
coding,
is there even a future for AS1, all the useful libraries seem to be AS2
only
these days too, perhaps that alone is a reason to switch. I'm unsure as to
what path I'm supposed to be on.
Any advice you could give me would be appreciated,
Ok, here's my 'designer who codes' or 'coder who designs' ("jack of all
trades, master of none") point of view:
AS2 is the right way to go. However, knowing when to apply each different
approach (doing everything on classes, doing everything inside the flash
movie, and all between) is the real issue.
If I want to create something quick, I usually create a movieclip with the
functionality I desire. It kind of mimics a class, or a component, but it's
neither; it's just a movieclip where I can quickly change something on the
code or on the graphics. Like a "smartclip" (heh). It's on this case that
some of the best OOP features (such as design patterns) also comes to help.
I treat like movieclip as a 'black box' (like a class..) so they do some
minimum talk to each other, trying to be standalone on what they do.
However, under AS2, the 'right' alternative would be create a new class and
attach it to the movieclip. But I've grown tired of that approach, since I
have to keep creating a lot of classes just to modify the functionality of,
say, one menu. And I'm not building apps; I'm building 'designer' websites
(see samples at zeh.com.br). This doesn't mean I build them like crap, or
that they have 'loosy' requirements when compared to an app; but it means I
build them quickly (taking around one month) and intelligently (or at least
I like to believe), not over-designing and making sure everything's on a
class and properly commented with javadocs and with UML diagrams and
whatnot. It also means I almost never reuse code between websites; each new
menu is a new menu, because it works in a much different way than the
previous menu I built. That's why I can't just create generic classes for
everything and extend from there; I'd have way too many classes.
I do, however, use classes for all kinds of semi-generic functionality I
need; reading XMLs, tweening, localization, trigonometry - it's all done on
classes. When it comes down to real-life work, obviously there's no point in
reinventing the wheel, so I try to build these generic tools that then I can
apply on my work. But that's the limit. The rest is too specific to be
reused.
I know this approach will be not be seen lightly on the eyes of more purist
coders. However, I like to believe my line of work requires a different set
of development skills - yes, I do try to make my code and design as
maintainable as possible and as easy to understand as possible (ie, full of
comments, not using spaghetti code, etc), but breaking eveything into tiny
classes just won't work, it'll be too much effort for too little advantages.
Like I said, I believe finding the correct balance between the two
approaches is the best answer - and there's no easy way to do it, it depends
a lot on the kind of work you're trying to do, how long do you want it to
live, how maintainable you want it to be, etc.
IMO.
- Zeh
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Actionscript 2 - suitable for designers?
I'd go for AS2. Mostly because that OOP flavour is the direction that almost all the commonly-used languages are heading in; the whole idea of objects and methods now pretty much applies to: - Javascript - Java - C++ - C# - Coding using XML - AS2 - Lingo - .NET - PHP And will apply to the XML scripting for Vista and almost certainly many other things out there. There's been a sort of convergent evolution thing going on for the last few years. Granted, OOP is not _required_ in some of those languages, but their code libraries are all evolving that way and each new release of the language seems to be firming up their OOP model. If you can get at least one OOP language under your belt it'll get you halfway towards learning any of those other languages - it's gaining the 'how it works' mental model that can apply to most high-level modern programming or scripting. So go for AS2. HTH, Ian On 3/27/06, Kevin Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I hope this isn't off-topic but I've been struggling to find the answer, and > this list has been a great help to me over the years. > > I'm a designer, but often code in Flash. I'm not building huge RIAs, usually > just adding small little bits of interactivity to sites, and building some > multimedia interfaces and gathering data from XML etc... Nothing hardcore, > but a bit more that just tinkering with AS. > > Up until now I've always used AS1, and though I've bought Colin Moock's AS2 > book, it seems like a bit leap to make, and from what I've read it seems like > many of the advantages of AS2 are in having proper OO, and more manageable > code for large projects. > > I'm wondering if AS2 offers any advantages to me, or if sticking with AS1 > would be better. Is AS2 (and now 3) the natural progression of Flash coding, > is there even a future for AS1, all the useful libraries seem to be AS2 only > these days too, perhaps that alone is a reason to switch. I'm unsure as to > what path I'm supposed to be on. > > Any advice you could give me would be appreciated, > > - Kevin > _ ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
[Flashcoders] Actionscript 2 - suitable for designers?
Hi, I hope this isn't off-topic but I've been struggling to find the answer, and this list has been a great help to me over the years. I'm a designer, but often code in Flash. I'm not building huge RIAs, usually just adding small little bits of interactivity to sites, and building some multimedia interfaces and gathering data from XML etc... Nothing hardcore, but a bit more that just tinkering with AS. Up until now I've always used AS1, and though I've bought Colin Moock's AS2 book, it seems like a bit leap to make, and from what I've read it seems like many of the advantages of AS2 are in having proper OO, and more manageable code for large projects. I'm wondering if AS2 offers any advantages to me, or if sticking with AS1 would be better. Is AS2 (and now 3) the natural progression of Flash coding, is there even a future for AS1, all the useful libraries seem to be AS2 only these days too, perhaps that alone is a reason to switch. I'm unsure as to what path I'm supposed to be on. Any advice you could give me would be appreciated, - Kevin ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
