Excelent idea Alex, thanks for sharing.
Juan Carlos Perez > On Aug 17, 2014, at 2:00, "Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com [flexcoders]" > <flexcoders@yahoogroups.com> wrote: > > Well, I don't know if Flash will return to being the solution for UI design. > With all of the various mobile browsers, I don't know if Flash will be able > to run in all of them. > > But Flex, on the other hand, could. That's what I'm trying to make happen > with FlexJS. FlexJS won't control every pixel like you could in Flash (at > least, certainly not early versions), but it should provide the other > benefits that folks have found missing, mainly in terms of developer > productivity. > > Yes, Flex isn't as popular as it was before Adobe donated it to Apache. > Adobe was spending serious money on getting folks to use Flex. But every > day, some other product or idea goes viral without million-dollar marketing > schemes. So, if you like Flex, take a look at FlexJS and tell us on the > Apache Flex dev list (d...@flex.apache.org) what it needs before you'll start > recommending it to others such that it can go viral. IOW, you have to do > your own marketing if you want to see more Flex jobs, and you have to help > shape Flex and/or FlexJS into something worth marketing. No big company is > going to do that for you. > > FlexJS isn't out to compete against HTML5. In fact, it is simply out to > leverage it. As I've been working on FlexJS and talking to Flex folks who > are now developing in some JS framework, it is becoming clear to me that any > application developer using any framework is really just attaching components > together. There is a longer version of what I'm about to write on the > Apache Flex LinkedIn discussion group, but basically, the problem with JS is > that you can attach anything to anything. Newer languages (TypeScript, DART) > have constructs to try to catch those mistakes. ActionScript can do an even > better job, especially for really big apps. And MXML gives you a schematic > of your components. > > These days, I'm hoping to find folks who can help those of us working on > FlexJS prove that AS and MXML can make you more proficient at attaching > nearly any JS framework's components together. Then someday, it won't > matter what JS framework your client wants to use, you'll use MXML and > ActionScript to assemble that JS framework's components into an application > and make fewer mistakes along the way. But that someday will come sooner if > folks can contribute their time and energy to the project. > > If you can help out, send an email to d...@flex.apache.org. > > -Alex > > From: "danielpr...@yahoo.com [flexcoders]" <flexcoders@yahoogroups.com> > Reply-To: "flexcoders@yahoogroups.com" <flexcoders@yahoogroups.com> > Date: Saturday, August 16, 2014 8:39 AM > To: "flexcoders@yahoogroups.com" <flexcoders@yahoogroups.com> > Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex > > > The original authors must be going nuts, in deep depression at least. > > They climbed mount everest to the pinnacle of human interface design and did > it in a universally accessible way. At the bottom line if you can't > mathematically relate every single pixel on the screen to every other one, > over time, you are by definition inferior to flash. > While I am currently working in Php/Mysql/ with Ajax on top due to the nature > of the project (absolute universal access), I think there is still hope. More > are taking flash to the browser native. Very smart move. If the standards are > there it will in time inevitably dominate. To save face it will probably be > called some "great new tech" called "bonzoshow" or something :) > Everybody literally freaked out at jobs' dying statement, jumped on the "it > won't run mobile" and like a herd of lemmings everybody dove for the exits. > Well mobile was si! ngle core then its quad and more now. Flash was and will > be again I think a universal solution to absolutely superior user interface > design. Pixel by Pixel over time. A growing morphing button is a single > mathematics equation, not an unpredictable herd of objects clattering around > in an approximation. >
