On Jun 7, 2007, at 3:34 PM, David Bovill wrote:
Not sure - but whats missing from this:
Adobe plans to release all of the components of the Flex SDK
needed to
create Flex applications, including the Java source code for the
ActionScript and MXML compilers, the ActionScript debugger, and the
ActionScript libraries that make up the core Flex framework. Adobe
Flex
Builder, the Eclipse-based IDE, is not part of the open source
announcement.
Sounds pretty comprehensive to me?
That is quite a bit of stuff but it is missing Flex Builder (the
development environment), Flex Data Services or Flash. As I
understand it (again, correct me if I'm wrong) the development
environment, a key component (data services) and the primary output
(Flash movies) of Flex are closed. Plus the Flash player isn't open
either.
What I'm getting at here is that key parts are still closed which is
what a Rev solution would be like if there was a widely available
open source web development framework.
I think the first step is an extensible language designed by a small
group that does have to waste time doing design by committee. Make
that available to everyone and then people can start building elegant
open source frameworks that will catch on.
What are you thinking of here Trevor - sounds intriguing - but you
lost me
Currently Revolution is primarily a desktop application environment.
The combination of the syntax, how easy it is to create GUI elements
and the cross-platform capabilities is a major plus and what draw me
towards it. What Revolution lacks is the capability to create your
own objects or extend the language in any way.
When you start using Revolution on the web the cross-platform nature
of the engine and the GUI elements no longer play a role in deciding
whether or not Revolution adds value. As a web development tool all
that matter are:
1) Language
2) Available frameworks and libraries
The GUI is handled by the web browser so interacting with the browser
is what your framework and libraries do. Really the language is the
primary factor since all frameworks and libraries are built using the
language.
In Revolution I can interact with lines in a string very elegantly:
repeat for each line theLine in thString
put item 1 of theLine into theID
put item 2 of theLine into theTitle
end repeat
The problem with the Revolution language now is that I can't create
my own xml object and interact with it like I might lines in a string
of text:
repeat for each node theNode in xml document myXMLDocument
put the "id" attribute of theNode into theID
put the "title" attribute of theNode into theTitle
end repeat
What this means is that a developer cannot create elegant language
based solutions for interacting with XML and databases (two key
elements of web development). I think for Revolution to be appealing
to web developers the language needs to support the ability to build
up custom objects and define our own syntax. The english-like syntax
is the beauty of the language but it needs to be made extensible by
the developer.
Does this make sense?
--
Trevor DeVore
Blue Mango Learning Systems
www.bluemangolearning.com - www.screensteps.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
