I'm definitely not a marketing person so suggestions are welcome. We should probably start another thread on it. I like the FlexJS name right now because I think it is important to get the attention of the JS developers, but maybe there's a better or additional tag line besides "Flex for JavaScript".
And Om is right that FlexJS isn't just for cross-compiling. I expect folks to add new libraries to FlexJS that don't have a JS equivalent and can therefore only be used with Flash. With the beads plug-ins, your app can have capabilities on Flash that it can't have on JS (and vice versa). And as Om also suggested you can choose to never cross-compile and simply create lighter faster Flash apps. I can imagine having a different release package that includes Flash-dependent libraries under a different name. I don't think we'd call that Flex 5 because that would imply 1:1 parity, and good names like Re-Flex are already taken. Suggestions for names for something like this is also welcome. -Alex On 3/26/14 8:20 AM, "Avi Kessner" <akess...@gmail.com> wrote: >I would like to see FlexJS advertised more as a way to expand Flex, rather >than to replace ActionScript or Flash. > >brought to you by the letters A, V, and I >and the number 47 > > >On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> Ok, I will remove the "Flash-based solutions no longer desirable" >> >> Anybody besides Maurice think I need to change or remove the "Flex >>without >> Flash"? >> >> -Alex >> >> On 3/24/14 11:52 PM, "Deepak MS" <megharajdee...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >I looked into this slide: >> >Why FlexJS? >> > >> >Adobe Flash Player used to be in every browser >> >Adobe AIR used to run on most computers >> >Executives no longer carry Flash-capable devices >> >AIR apps require installation and upgrades >> >AIR apps have some fidelity issues >> >Flash-based solutions no longer desirable >> >Large MXML and ActionScript code bases >> > >> >I honestly felt that it's depicting flex\flash in a negative way. >> > >> >Subject says 'Why FlexJS?', but instead it talks 'Why we shouldn't use >> >flex\flash'. Flex is so popular because the way it is(running on flash >> >player with super rich UI). Only problem is it cannot run on mobile >> >devices >> >on browser because of flash player limitation. And this is where FlexJS >> >comes into picture. And I feel we need to portray FlexJS as a powerful >> >alternative for running flex based apps on mobile browsers. >> > >> >I don't think FlexJS would give exact same output as flash player. And >> >hence I would strongly encourage my customers to use our flex >>applications >> >on desktops\laptops and I would give a alternative app(compiled with >> >FlexJS) for their mobile browsers, which would be light weight. >> > >> >I am assuming that FlexJS would be used to convert MXML\ActionScript >>code. >> >And if we say 'Flash based solutions no longer desirable' and if people >> >stop creating flex applications, then the whole purpose of FlexJS would >> >get >> >defeated, I reckon. >> > >> >That was my perspective. I don't know, all those pointers may sound >> >correct >> >for some too. May be it all depends on how each individual would take >>it >> >:) >> > >> >Agree with Om regarding a mention of new >>features\enhancements\skinning. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Justin Mclean >> ><jus...@classsoftware.com>wrote: >> > >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> > 2. The numbers on slide 32 is a outdated. We have more than 40,000 >> >> > installs of the Flex SDK since we started keeping track. >> >> >> >> BTW where do you get the 40,000 number from. I can only see 30,000 in >> >>the >> >> google stats. That only include 4.9 and up are you including 4.8 in >>that >> >> and if so how did we measure that it got 10,000 downloads? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Justin >> >>
