I have found Flex is much better received than Flash. In truth, Flex developers are Flash developers, but I never liked using that description...I develop Flex applications.
I guess I drank a little too much of the Macromedia/Adobe Kool-Aid, but I never understood why so many hated Flash, but they sure did. Flex didn't seem to pick up the same garbage. I absolutely rebelled at the re-branding of Flex builder as Flash Builder (I still call it Flex Builder). Going forward, especially with all the cross compiling efforts underway, I would try and put the Flex name on everything Apache Flex did. Mark -----Original Message----- From: James Roland Cabresos [mailto:j.cabre...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 9:25 AM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: Language features Oh, what the hell I'm typing, I'm typing drunk... Let me rephrase what I just said earlier: Flex currently, already has it's own language features that exist in MXML which came to be known to most people as Flex. I get to ask a lot of people mostly web developers what they know about Flex and most people think Flex is a different language/platform rather than an SDK or a framework for Flash. I think this a common misconception going around the community of web developers.. at least from where am at. I don't have the numbers but on my end that's how I see it. Thinking of this misconception going around, sticking with Flex as a name for an Actionscript version with added features would be great. Flex is already halfway to become a full programming language of it's own with it's own markup language based on XML, adding features on top of Actionscript is going all the way. On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:11 PM, James Roland Cabresos <j.cabre...@gmail.com>wrote: > Flex currently, already has it's own language features that exist in MXML. > This came to be known to most people as Flex. I get ask around a lot > and most people think Flex is a language rather than an SDK or a > framework for Actionscript. If you're going to think of a name, I > think sticking with Flex as the name for AS with new language > features. Flex built a markup language base on XML, why not do the same thing with actionscript? > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Roland Zwaga <rol...@stackandheap.com>wrote: > >> by the way, with all this type of language features, it'll be >> interesting to see what Adobe is going to with ASC2.0 on their end. >> They reported here on the list that they'd be developing ASC >> separately since it would focus on AS.Next. But with their last >> announcement they have indicated that the AVM2 will remain their >> focus. Which means AS3 as well, I suppose. >> So, as we are adding language features, does that mean there is going >> to be two versions of AS3? Apache AS3 and Adobe AS3? >> >> So, when we do add features, should we make an official name change >> to the language? >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> On 5 February 2013 05:22, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <nicho...@spoon.as> wrote: >> >> > I was under the impression that they updated the AMF protocol to >> > support Vector... I'm not remembering /where/ I read that, but I >> > remember them saying it was coming... >> > >> > -Nick >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Tianzhen Lin <tang...@usa.net> wrote: >> > >> > > Besides strongly-typed dictionary, adding generic support would >> > > bring >> the >> > > language to a more reusable state, so we can say good-bye to >> > > ArrayCollection, but List<MyType>. >> > > >> > > Additionally, if the AMF also supports generics, that would >> > > complete >> the >> > > whole picture. Currently Vector is not supported in AMF, making >> > > it inconvenient to pass through the wire. >> > > >> > > Tangent >> > > >> > > http://tangentlin.wordpress.com/ >> > > >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoubl...@hotmail.com] >> > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 12:50 PM >> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org >> > > Subject: Re: Language features >> > > >> > > Btw, maybe strongly-typed Dictionary as well :) >> > > >> > > -Fred >> > > >> > > -----Message d'origine----- >> > > From: Frédéric THOMAS >> > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:05 PM >> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org >> > > Subject: Re: Language features >> > > >> > > Hi Gordon, >> > > >> > > > Adding abstract classes and private constructors to Falcon >> > > > should be easy >> > > >> > > That's a good news, at this point protected constructor would be >> welcomed >> > > as well as private constructors are commonly used in classes that >> contain >> > > static members only. >> > > >> > > And I voting +1 for the rest :-) you gonna make happy a lot of >> > > people >> who >> > > wait for a long time for these features. >> > > >> > > -Fred >> > > >> > > -----Message d'origine----- >> > > From: Gordon Smith >> > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 7:38 PM >> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org >> > > Subject: RE: Language features >> > > >> > > Adding abstract classes and private constructors to Falcon should >> > > be >> > easy. >> > > Adding generics and method overloading would be considerably >> > > harder >> but >> > > probably doable after a lot of design. Two other features worth >> > considering >> > > are strong function types (i.e., a type like (int, int):String >> > > for a function that takes two ints and returns a String) and >> > > strongly-typed >> > fixed >> > > arrays (i.e., int[]). >> > > >> > > I'm going to continue to focus on MXML. Until it is finished, we >> > > can't move from the old compiler to the new one. I don't >> > > recommend making >> any >> > > modifications to the old compiler. >> > > >> > > - Gordon >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoubl...@hotmail.com] >> > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 3:07 AM >> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org >> > > Subject: Re: Language features >> > > >> > > +1 Nick >> > > >> > > May be possible, I don't know, time ago, I looked at adding the >> > > possibility to have the constructor accepting other NS than >> > > public to simulate abstract classes and seen 2 places where it >> > > was checked but >> > didn't >> > > dare to change it besause I didn't know the impacts, I hope >> > > someone >> > better >> > > than me here can take care of it, compiler geeks, are you here ? >> > > >> > > -Fred >> > > >> > > -----Message d'origine----- >> > > From: Nick Collins >> > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 11:24 AM >> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org >> > > Subject: Language features >> > > >> > > With the cancellation of AVM next, should we perhaps look at >> > > adding >> some >> > > additional language features to our compiler? >> > > >> > > As I think about some of the features I would like to see, such >> > > as abstract classes, generics, method overloading, etc. it seems >> > > to me >> that >> > at >> > > least some of them could be implemented into our compiler? >> > > >> > > Nick >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> regards, >> Roland >> >> -- >> Roland Zwaga >> Senior Consultant | Stack & Heap BVBA >> >> +32 (0)486 16 12 62 | rol...@stackandheap.com | >> http://www.stackandheap.com >> >> http://zwaga.blogspot.com >> http://www.springactionscript.org >> http://www.as3commons.org >> > >
