Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex

[Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com [flexcoders]]

Are you saying you've tried to port this to JS and it did not run as well?

I'll try to remember this site as we work on FlexJS.

Thanks,
-Alex

From: "Dan Pride danielpr...@yahoo.com<mailto:danielpr...@yahoo.com> 
[flexcoders]" mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>>
Reply-To: "flexcoders@yahoogroups.com<mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>" 
mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>>
Date: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 4:34 AM
To: "flexcoders@yahoogroups.com<mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>" 
mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex



Good Idea, it would be piling one hysteria on top of another so to speak ;)

 I urge you to consider I wrote this just before IE 8.
Still runs pretty good.
My first, a little embarrassing internally to me now but still.
Compare "way back then" to the future you are asking for now.
Try clicking a few lists or pictures etc

http://archaeolibrary.com/


Dan Pride
1-303-800-0900
1-206-313-4607 Mobile
http://danielpride.com<http://danielpride.com/>
www.linkedin.com/in/danielpride/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/danielpride/>
http://archaeolibrary.com/
http://RideshareGPS.com<http://gpsrideshare.com/>




On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 3:40 PM, "Alex Harui 
aha...@adobe.com<mailto:aha...@adobe.com> [flexcoders]" 
mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:



I'm going to ignore your brush fire topic, but I will address two other points:

"juice under the hood".  That is a concern for trying to emulate Flash or the 
current Flex SDK in JS since that is quite a bit of code.  But for FlexJS, if 
you look at the prototype of the JQuery wrapping, it is a thin layer written to 
implement whatever was needed to implement an AS emulation of JQuery.  So, in 
theory, if FlexJS using JQuery isn't fast enough, it probably wasn't going to 
be fast enough use JQuery either.  And that's not a problem for the Apache Flex 
project.  The browser companies know they need to get their JS implementations 
to work faster and computers and devices are getting faster.  It might be a 
problem now, but may not be in the future.

Also note that in many cases JS runs faster than AS.  In the JS code we do 
write for FlexJS we are trying to re-use code as much as possible, which is 
supposed to take advantage of the JS optimizers.  That's why FlexJS is using 
more composition instead of inheritance since AS doesn't support multiple 
inheritance.

"pixel-by-pixel control".  If the industry demands it, the browser 
manufacturers will deliver.  It doesn't matter for FlexJS, although it would 
probably make some things easier or faster.  Already, we've seen significant 
convergence towards "standards" in the main browsers (IE, FF, Chrome, Android, 
IOS).  Compare what we have today vs back in IE6 or even IE8.

-Alex

From: "danielpr...@yahoo.com<mailto:danielpr...@yahoo.com> [flexcoders]" 
mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>>
Reply-To: "flexcoders@yahoogroups.com<mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>" 
mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>>
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 12:05 PM
To: "flexcoders@yahoogroups.com<mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>" 
mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex


I certainly wish you the best with the javascript implementation. But have to 
admit to strong doubts about it. No matter how many hoops you put yourself 
through you are still working without many fundamentals of advanced 
programming. There just isn't the juice under the hood, maybe with parallel 
processing, but then we are getting close to a million monkeys banging on 
typewriters til they eventually produce a novel aren't we?
I think the latest ie browser brought flash into the browser as a native 
element not a plug in. Like it or not you got it. I was stunned to hear it 
being done by MS, but its a brilliant way to bring about a correction to the 
market hysteria which dominated after Job's death, and Adobe's stupid response. 
Eventually the industry will demand pixel by pixel interface control, there 
just is no substitute equal to it by definition. After all the burning at the 
stake stuff, it will probably be called "shadow" o! r something, not flash, but 
a rose by any other name.

At the risk of creating a never ending brush fire (oh what the hey its fun 
sometimes), I wonder if some of the jump on flash and pummel it hysteria had an 
unacknowledged element of gay bashing.  Adobe, deserve it or not, like it or 
not, had quite a reputation. There was one advocate, I think it was in RTMP 
networking videos, that would insert short clips of himself getting back ended 
after about 45 minutes of mind numbing, real high end, discussion. I thought it 
was funny as hell, r

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex

[Dan Pride danielpr...@yahoo.com [flexcoders]]

Good Idea, it would be piling one hysteria on top of another so to speak ;)

 I urge you to consider I wrote this just before IE 8.
Still runs pretty good.
My first, a little embarrassing internally to me now but still.
Compare "way back then" to the future you are asking for now.
Try clicking a few lists or pictures etc
 
http://archaeolibrary.com/



Dan Pride
1-303-800-0900
1-206-313-4607 Mobile
http://danielpride.com
www.linkedin.com/in/danielpride/
http://archaeolibrary.com/
http://RideshareGPS.com




On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 3:40 PM, "Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com [flexcoders]" 
 wrote:
 


  
I'm going to ignore your brush fire topic, but I will address two other points:

"juice under the hood".  That is a concern for trying to emulate Flash or the 
current Flex SDK in JS since that is quite a bit of code.  But for FlexJS, if 
you look at the prototype of the JQuery wrapping, it is a thin layer written to 
implement whatever was needed to implement an AS emulation of JQuery.  So, in 
theory, if FlexJS using JQuery isn't fast enough, it probably wasn't going to 
be fast enough use JQuery either.  And that's not a problem for the Apache Flex 
project.  The browser companies know they need to get their JS implementations 
to work faster and computers and devices are getting faster.  It might be a 
problem now, but may not be in the future.

Also note that in many cases JS runs faster than AS.  In the JS code we do 
write for FlexJS we are trying to re-use code as much as possible, which is 
supposed to take advantage of the JS optimizers.  That's why FlexJS is using 
more composition instead of inheritance since AS doesn't support multiple 
inheritance.

"pixel-by-pixel control".  If the industry demands it, the browser 
manufacturers will deliver.  It doesn't matter for FlexJS, although it would 
probably make some things easier or faster.  Already, we've seen significant 
convergence towards "standards" in the main browsers (IE, FF, Chrome, Android, 
IOS).  Compare what we have today vs back in IE6 or even IE8.
 
-Alex

From: "danielpr...@yahoo.com [flexcoders]" 
Reply-To: "flexcoders@yahoogroups.com" 
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 12:05 PM
To: "flexcoders@yahoogroups.com" 
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex


  
I certainly wish you the best with the javascript implementation. But have to 
admit to strong doubts about it. No matter how many hoops you put yourself 
through you are still working without many fundamentals of advanced 
programming. There just isn't the juice under the hood, maybe with parallel 
processing, but then we are getting close to a million monkeys banging on 
typewriters til they eventually produce a novel aren't we? 
I think the latest ie browser brought flash into the browser as a native 
element not a plug in. Like it or not you got it. I was stunned to hear it 
being done by MS, but its a brilliant way to bring about a correction to the 
market hysteria which dominated after Job's death, and Adobe's stupid response. 
Eventually the industry will demand pixel by pixel interface control, there 
just is no substitute equal to it by definition. After all the burning at the 
stake stuff, it will probably be called "shadow" o! r something, not flash, but 
a rose by any other name.

At the risk of creating a never ending brush fire (oh what the hey its fun 
sometimes), I wonder if some of the jump on flash and pummel it hysteria had an 
unacknowledged element of gay bashing.  Adobe, deserve it or not, like it or 
not, had quite a reputation. There was one advocate, I think it was in RTMP 
networking videos, that would insert short clips of himself getting back ended 
after about 45 minutes of mind numbing, real high end, discussion. I thought it 
was funny as hell, removed the glaze from your eyes, and dropped your jaw the 
first time you saw it, but i think others were not so amused. (Hey, Kiddies 
certainly aren't going to get that far into one of these unless they are 
enrolling at Harvard at 12 or something, and I survived the experience, and 
found the fast forward button). I think the bent over man statue in front of 
the offices also h! elped with the rep issue. BUT WHO CARES ! Credit where 
credit ! is due. There were some of the most
 brilliant programmers with some of the greatest contributions by software 
developers ever. We have witnessed a modern equivalent of the Salem Witch 
trials on this one for whatever reasons, and the amusing part is that we 
actually think we are advanced beyond that.

Dan Pride

P.S. Why can't women advocates get away with this once in a while :)

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex

[Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com [flexcoders]]

I'm going to ignore your brush fire topic, but I will address two other points:

"juice under the hood".  That is a concern for trying to emulate Flash or the 
current Flex SDK in JS since that is quite a bit of code.  But for FlexJS, if 
you look at the prototype of the JQuery wrapping, it is a thin layer written to 
implement whatever was needed to implement an AS emulation of JQuery.  So, in 
theory, if FlexJS using JQuery isn't fast enough, it probably wasn't going to 
be fast enough use JQuery either.  And that's not a problem for the Apache Flex 
project.  The browser companies know they need to get their JS implementations 
to work faster and computers and devices are getting faster.  It might be a 
problem now, but may not be in the future.

Also note that in many cases JS runs faster than AS.  In the JS code we do 
write for FlexJS we are trying to re-use code as much as possible, which is 
supposed to take advantage of the JS optimizers.  That's why FlexJS is using 
more composition instead of inheritance since AS doesn't support multiple 
inheritance.

"pixel-by-pixel control".  If the industry demands it, the browser 
manufacturers will deliver.  It doesn't matter for FlexJS, although it would 
probably make some things easier or faster.  Already, we've seen significant 
convergence towards "standards" in the main browsers (IE, FF, Chrome, Android, 
IOS).  Compare what we have today vs back in IE6 or even IE8.

-Alex

From: "danielpr...@yahoo.com<mailto:danielpr...@yahoo.com> [flexcoders]" 
mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>>
Reply-To: "flexcoders@yahoogroups.com<mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>" 
mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>>
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 12:05 PM
To: "flexcoders@yahoogroups.com<mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>" 
mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex



I certainly wish you the best with the javascript implementation. But have to 
admit to strong doubts about it. No matter how many hoops you put yourself 
through you are still working without many fundamentals of advanced 
programming. There just isn't the juice under the hood, maybe with parallel 
processing, but then we are getting close to a million monkeys banging on 
typewriters til they eventually produce a novel aren't we?

I think the latest ie browser brought flash into the browser as a native 
element not a plug in. Like it or not you got it. I was stunned to hear it 
being done by MS, but its a brilliant way to bring about a correction to the 
market hysteria which dominated after Job's death, and Adobe's stupid response. 
Eventually the industry will demand pixel by pixel interface control, there 
just is no substitute equal to it by definition. After all the burning at the 
stake stuff, it will probably be called "shadow" o! r something, not flash, but 
a rose by any other name.

At the risk of creating a never ending brush fire (oh what the hey its fun 
sometimes), I wonder if some of the jump on flash and pummel it hysteria had an 
unacknowledged element of gay bashing.  Adobe, deserve it or not, like it or 
not, had quite a reputation. There was one advocate, I think it was in RTMP 
networking videos, that would insert short clips of himself getting back ended 
after about 45 minutes of mind numbing, real high end, discussion. I thought it 
was funny as hell, removed the glaze from your eyes, and dropped your jaw the 
first time you saw it, but i think others were not so amused. (Hey, Kiddies 
certainly aren't going to get that far into one of these unless they are 
enrolling at Harvard at 12 or something, and I survived the experience, and 
found the fast forward button). I think the bent over man statue in front of 
the offices also h! elped with the rep issue. BUT WHO CARES ! Credit where 
credit ! is due. There were some of the most brilliant programmers with some of 
the greatest contributions by software developers ever. We have witnessed a 
modern equivalent of the Salem Witch trials on this one for whatever reasons, 
and the amusing part is that we actually think we are advanced beyond that.

Dan Pride

P.S. Why can't women advocates get away with this once in a while :)

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex

[danielpr...@yahoo.com [flexcoders]]

I certainly wish you the best with the javascript implementation. But have to 
admit to strong doubts about it. No matter how many hoops you put yourself 
through you are still working without many fundamentals of advanced 
programming. There just isn't the juice under the hood, maybe with parallel 
processing, but then we are getting close to a million monkeys banging on 
typewriters til they eventually produce a novel aren't we?  I think the latest 
ie browser brought flash into the browser as a native element not a plug in. 
Like it or not you got it. I was stunned to hear it being done by MS, but its a 
brilliant way to bring about a correction to the market hysteria which 
dominated after Job's death, and Adobe's stupid response. Eventually the 
industry will demand pixel by pixel interface control, there just is no 
substitute equal to it by definition. After all the burning at the stake stuff, 
it will probably be called "shadow" or something, not flash, but a rose by any 
other name.
 

 At the risk of creating a never ending brush fire (oh what the hey its fun 
sometimes), I wonder if some of the jump on flash and pummel it hysteria had an 
unacknowledged element of gay bashing.  Adobe, deserve it or not, like it or 
not, had quite a reputation. There was one advocate, I think it was in RTMP 
networking videos, that would insert short clips of himself getting back ended 
after about 45 minutes of mind numbing, real high end, discussion. I thought it 
was funny as hell, removed the glaze from your eyes, and dropped your jaw the 
first time you saw it, but i think others were not so amused. (Hey, Kiddies 
certainly aren't going to get that far into one of these unless they are 
enrolling at Harvard at 12 or something, and I survived the experience, and 
found the fast forward button). I think the bent over man statue in front of 
the offices also helped with the rep issue. BUT WHO CARES ! Credit where credit 
is due. There were some of the most brilliant programmers with some of the 
greatest contributions by software developers ever. We have witnessed a modern 
equivalent of the Salem Witch trials on this one for whatever reasons, and the 
amusing part is that we actually think we are advanced beyond that.
 

 Dan Pride
 

 P.S. Why can't women advocates get away with this once in a while :)
 

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex

[Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com [flexcoders]]

Not sure  what you mean by Flash to browser native.

I've come across 3 approaches so far:

  1.  emulate Flash in the browser.  Jangaroo and Shumway are examples.  Not 
sure how it is going for them.
  2.  Emulate the current Flex SDK in JS.  One Apache Flex committer is taking 
this approach.  The big question here is that I expect the end result to have 
lots more JS source code involved than a framework designed for cross-compiling 
like FlexJS.  But maybe the browser and minifiers can make that negligible.
  3.  FlexJS.  This is less about Flash than it is about using MXML and AS to 
cross compile to JS.  FlexJS isn't going to have the same pixel-level control 
that you got in Flash.  Only the Flash emulator folks have a true shot at it.  
But again, I offered in a previous post that many folks don't need that and 
just want to catch their bugs earlier by using a more structured language and 
tool chain.

From: "Dan Pride danielpr...@yahoo.com<mailto:danielpr...@yahoo.com> 
[flexcoders]" mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>>
Reply-To: "flexcoders@yahoogroups.com<mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>" 
mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>>
Date: Monday, August 18, 2014 4:56 PM
To: "flexcoders@yahoogroups.com<mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>" 
mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex



Being its my 12th language I don't find JS that difficult.
I object to the design tho.
Its a completely inferior and unpredictable design approach.
My primary interests are relational database, complex relationships.
having classes etc that enable you to deal with the entire screen as a unit is 
invaluable
Look there is a good reason that google is on its third try to replace 
javascript with something better.
If the movement of flash native to the browser succeeds then its eventually 
going to be game over.
Its basics. Can you relate every pixel on the screen in one unified equation 
and morph it at will mathematically.
By the way, I haven't looked lately, been knee deep in other stuff, how is the 
flash to the browser native going anyway?

Dan Pride
1-303-800-0900
1-206-313-4607 Mobile
http://danielpride.com<http://danielpride.com/>
www.linkedin.com/in/danielpride/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/danielpride/>
http://archaeolibrary.com/
http://RideshareGPS.com<http://gpsrideshare.com/>




On Monday,! August 18, 2014 4:07 PM, "Scott Fanetti 
scott.fanetti@gmail.c<mailto:scott.fanetti@gmail.c>! om [flex coders]" 
mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:



Wow - I really don't think this is the forum for character assassination. I've 
been a polyglot developer and architect for 20 years.  One thing in technology 
is constant - that is change.

Adapt.  It is childish to cling to a technology like a fanboy.

Dynamic languages use different paradigms than strongly typed languages.  In 
these contexts functional styles and extension through composition are favored 
over extension through inheritance.  But these are all just tools for 
communication between the dev and the user.

The users have chosen a route that no longer needs flex/flash. That is neither 
good nor bad - it just is.

You may dislike parts of technology A and think it's inferior to technology B - 
but have you considered the notion that possibly you may be trying I hammer 
nails with a saw? You may dislike that JS does not have the type safety of AS. 
But if you are relying on type checking you are missing the boat. The compiler 
can't check if your logic is bad. It can only check that something like tab a 
is in slot b.

You still have to unit test. All the skills you bring to solve a problem are 
only marginally helped by the compiler bitching that a class does not have a 
method to support an interface.  There is nothing inherently bad about 
prototypical inheritance as opposed to class based inheritance. As a matter of 
fact you typically don't need to use inheritance in JS.

Tell me - is it cleaner to devolve functionality into representations that can 
be decorated onto any object - and you test the functionality itself? Or to 
HAVE to inherit from class A in order to get the features if class A? You can't 
do multiple inheritance in AS - so you have to hack around with interfaces and 
utils or you must repeat yourself.

In JS - just decorate what you need with what you need it to do.

It's all good bro. I'm just saying that as a seasoned flex dev that feared 
moving to JS - in my experience - it was an easy transition.  But whatever. 
Have a great day!

And I accept the apology you certainly forgot to add by calling me a manager 
:). I realize it's hard to be civil when someone is wrong on the internet.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 18, 2014, at 9:50 AM, 
"danielpr...@yahoo.com<mailto:danielpr...@yahoo.com> [flexcoders]"

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex

[Dan Pride danielpr...@yahoo.com [flexcoders]]

Being its my 12th language I don't find JS that difficult.
I object to the design tho.
Its a completely inferior and unpredictable design approach.
My primary interests are relational database, complex relationships.
having classes etc that enable you to deal with the entire screen as a unit is 
invaluable
Look there is a good reason that google is on its third try to replace 
javascript with something better.
If the movement of flash native to the browser succeeds then its eventually 
going to be game over.
Its basics. Can you relate every pixel on the screen in one unified equation 
and morph it at will mathematically.
By the way, I haven't looked lately, been knee deep in other stuff, how is the 
flash to the browser native going anyway?
 
Dan Pride
1-303-800-0900
1-206-313-4607 Mobile
http://danielpride.com
www.linkedin.com/in/danielpride/
http://archaeolibrary.com/
http://RideshareGPS.com





On Monday, August 18, 2014 4:07 PM, "Scott Fanetti scott.fane...@gmail.com 
[flexcoders]"  wrote:
 


  
Wow - I really don't think this is the forum for character assassination. I've 
been a polyglot developer and architect for 20 years.  One thing in technology 
is constant - that is change.  

Adapt.  It is childish to cling to a technology like a fanboy.  

Dynamic languages use different paradigms than strongly typed languages.  In 
these contexts functional styles and extension through composition are favored 
over extension through inheritance.  But these are all just tools for 
communication between the dev and the user.  

The users have chosen a route that no longer needs flex/flash. That is neither 
good nor bad - it just is.  

You may dislike parts of technology A and think it's inferior to technology B - 
but have you considered the notion that possibly you may be trying I hammer 
nails with a saw? You may dislike that JS does not have the type safety of AS. 
But if you are relying on type checking you are missing the boat. The compiler 
can't check if your logic is bad. It can only check that something like tab a 
is in slot b. 

You still have to unit test. All the skills you bring to solve a problem are 
only marginally helped by the compiler bitching that a class does not have a 
method to support an interface.  There is nothing inherently bad about 
prototypical inheritance as opposed to class based inheritance. As a matter of 
fact you typically don't need to use inheritance in JS.  

Tell me - is it cleaner to devolve functionality into representations that can 
be decorated onto any object - and you test the functionality itself? Or to 
HAVE to inherit from class A in order to get the features if class A? You can't 
do multiple inheritance in AS - so you have to hack around with interfaces and 
utils or you must repeat yourself.  

In JS - just decorate what you need with what you need it to do.  

It's all good bro. I'm just saying that as a seasoned flex dev that feared 
moving to JS - in my experience - it was an easy transition.  But whatever. 
Have a great day!

And I accept the apology you certainly forgot to add by calling me a manager 
:). I realize it's hard to be civil when someone is wrong on the internet.  

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 18, 2014, at 9:50 AM, "danielpr...@yahoo.com [flexcoders]" 
 wrote:


  
>> js is almost exactly like Actionscript.
>Typical of a JS advocate, no real knowledge of object oriented structures and 
>concepts. Bet this is by another manager type that doesn't know an array from 
>a variable (actually that WOULD be the same level of knowledge in this case 
>wouldn't it.)

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex

[John Hall jh...@cactusware.com [flexcoders]]

Think the person was simply referring to the vocabulary and syntax, since
they're both based on the ECMA standards. Not sure it deserved an ad
hominem attack. It's a pretty accurate statement that someone who knows
ActionScript won't be baffled by JS.


On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:50 AM, danielpr...@yahoo.com [flexcoders] <
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> > js is almost exactly like Actionscript.
> Typical of a JS advocate, no real knowledge of object oriented structures
> and concepts. Bet this is by another manager type that doesn't know an
> array from a variable (actually that WOULD be the same level of knowledge
> in this case wouldn't it.)
>
>  
>



-- 
John Hall
jh...@cactusware.com
http://www.cactusware.com

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex

[Scott Fanetti scott.fane...@gmail.com [flexcoders]]

Wow - I really don't think this is the forum for character assassination. I've 
been a polyglot developer and architect for 20 years.  One thing in technology 
is constant - that is change.  

Adapt.  It is childish to cling to a technology like a fanboy.  

Dynamic languages use different paradigms than strongly typed languages.  In 
these contexts functional styles and extension through composition are favored 
over extension through inheritance.  But these are all just tools for 
communication between the dev and the user.  

The users have chosen a route that no longer needs flex/flash. That is neither 
good nor bad - it just is.  

You may dislike parts of technology A and think it's inferior to technology B - 
but have you considered the notion that possibly you may be trying I hammer 
nails with a saw? You may dislike that JS does not have the type safety of AS. 
But if you are relying on type checking you are missing the boat. The compiler 
can't check if your logic is bad. It can only check that something like tab a 
is in slot b. 

You still have to unit test. All the skills you bring to solve a problem are 
only marginally helped by the compiler bitching that a class does not have a 
method to support an interface.  There is nothing inherently bad about 
prototypical inheritance as opposed to class based inheritance. As a matter of 
fact you typically don't need to use inheritance in JS.  

Tell me - is it cleaner to devolve functionality into representations that can 
be decorated onto any object - and you test the functionality itself? Or to 
HAVE to inherit from class A in order to get the features if class A? You can't 
do multiple inheritance in AS - so you have to hack around with interfaces and 
utils or you must repeat yourself.  

In JS - just decorate what you need with what you need it to do.  

It's all good bro. I'm just saying that as a seasoned flex dev that feared 
moving to JS - in my experience - it was an easy transition.  But whatever. 
Have a great day!

And I accept the apology you certainly forgot to add by calling me a manager 
:). I realize it's hard to be civil when someone is wrong on the internet.  

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 18, 2014, at 9:50 AM, "danielpr...@yahoo.com [flexcoders]" 
>  wrote:
> 
> > js is almost exactly like Actionscript.
> 
> Typical of a JS advocate, no real knowledge of object oriented structures and 
> concepts. Bet this is by another manager type that doesn't know an array from 
> a variable (actually that WOULD be the same level of knowledge in this case 
> wouldn't it.)
> 

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex

[Wemerson Couto Guimarães wemerso...@gmail.com [flexcoders]]

Hi all.

Try Wakanda JS and be happy & forgot flash/flex and etc. It's Ann
All-on-one solution: http server, NoSql database, JS framawork for frontend
and backend and have an amazing RAD tool for HTML5 UI design an much
more... And it's extremely well documented anos have lotes of videos 4 free

Ser in: http://www.wakanda.org
Em 18/08/2014 10:50, "danielpr...@yahoo.com [flexcoders]" <
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com> escreveu:

>
>
> > js is almost exactly like Actionscript.
> Typical of a JS advocate, no real knowledge of object oriented structures
> and concepts. Bet this is by another manager type that doesn't know an
> array from a variable (actually that WOULD be the same level of knowledge
> in this case wouldn't it.)
>  
>

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex

[Juan Carlos Pérez synkop...@gmail.com [flexcoders]]

Excelent idea Alex, thanks for sharing.


Juan Carlos Perez

> On Aug 17, 2014, at 2:00, "Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com [flexcoders]" 
>  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]" 
> Reply-To: "flexcoders@yahoogroups.com" 
> Date: Saturday, August 16, 2014 8:39 AM
> To: "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.
> 

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex

[danielpr...@yahoo.com [flexcoders]]

> js is almost exactly like Actionscript. Typical of a JS advocate, no real 
> knowledge of object oriented structures and concepts. Bet this is by another 
> manager type that doesn't know an array from a variable (actually that WOULD 
> be the same level of knowledge in this case wouldn't it.)

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex

[Barry Gold barrydg...@ca.rr.com [flexcoders]]

On 8/16/2014 6:35 PM, Scott Fanetti scott.fane...@gmail.com [flexcoders] 
wrote:
> Luckily - js is almost exactly like Actionscript. Anybody that is good 
> at AS can write JS in no time. 
If you don't mind working in a language that:

a) Doesn't have type declarations for variables, arguments, and function 
return values

b) Has no built-in syntax for classes and objects.  You have to build a 
template object and assign all the functions as "attributes" of the 
template.

c) Doesn't have the enormous library of built-in classes that comes with 
AS2 or AS3.

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex

[Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com [flexcoders]]

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]" 
mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>>
Reply-To: "flexcoders@yahoogroups.com" 
mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>>
Date: Saturday, August 16, 2014 8:39 AM
To: "flexcoders@yahoogroups.com" 
mailto: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.

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex

[Scott Fanetti scott.fane...@gmail.com [flexcoders]]

I built the Rosetta Stone user interface in flex and the EA Pogo flex games 
interface and online store were also built by me. I was using flash when it was 
the Futuresplash player. I was a very early adopter. 

Adobe F'd it in the A  by mismanaging the technology that WAS really great.  
But - time goes on and you change technologies.  I wrote a ton of Lingo in 
director too - along with vbscript for IE only interfaces. I've had my share of 
dead end technologies.  Technologies rise and fall - a good dev realizes it's 
all pretty much the same from tech to tech - the syntax changes but the 
patterns are transferable. 

Now though - there is no justifiable reason to do any development in flex.  
Adobe has given up on it. It is not going to be a viable platform for the 
future.

Luckily - js is almost exactly like Actionscript. Anybody that is good at AS 
can write JS in no time. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 16, 2014, at 8:22 PM, "danielpr...@yahoo.com [flexcoders]" 
>  wrote:
> 
> I notice you don't compare it to your prior experience developing user 
> interfaces in flash?
> 
> 

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Future Scope of Flex

[David Adams dpad...@gmail.com [flexcoders]]

>
> like promises - that were never really implemented in Flex/flash.
> Like what specifically?
>

Try this:

http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/es6/promises/