Okay so, "you may have missed folks who occasionally ask if, for example Flash Player version N is going to stop running their existing Flex apps. These folks can have significant investments in large code bases and it would be very stressful and expensive from them to have to rush to get off of Flash for some other HTML/JS solution."
Right, Adobe's customers are watching and we don't want to upset them. "Adobe may not be investing in Flash in a way to compete as a platform for web apps" "It would look really bad for Adobe and major browser vendors to “break the web” by somehow making Flash not work, so one can really expect Flash to work in some form in browsers for as far into the future as anyone ever needs to predict." 2 points here. So Adobe isn't investing to make the platform that this framework relies on to compete with modern development, which is moving to web-framework for everything. But, it's not "dead". So, it's maintaining. Second point about making adobe look bad by breaking flash (gee we're talking a lot about adobe here), well, that didn't seem to turn out too badly for a company, who now has a market capacity of hundreds of billions of dollars. "Adobe has spent serious money on getting Flex established and growing at Apache to ensure that Flex can live on forever, just not as an Adobe product." Again about adobe. Yes they spent serious money, great. I spent serious money on Adobe back in the day. I dunno what to say these comments, we're even? Making AS bindings is going the wrong direction. As the platform dies, the desire to code in actionscript... uhh.. (what happens to old people? Don't wanna use the bad D word). Gluing the future to the past doesn't solve that. Developing a language basically without an official IDE for a targeted platform whos stated goal is to maintain status quo and "correcting" new people into silence when they raise these legitimate issues (to the non-delusional) at the hopes of coming up with a solition... Hmm, well. This effort is dead. Oh oops, sorry, it's very much alive, if by alive you mean maintaining the software to keep adobe's clients happy. Take care guys. On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > Like Jude said, welcome to the group. Since you are new, you may have > missed folks who occasionally ask if, for example Flash Player version N > is going to stop running their existing Flex apps. These folks can have > significant investments in large code bases and it would be very stressful > and expensive from them to have to rush to get off of Flash for some other > HTML/JS solution. > > And so most of us don’t like using the term “dead”. It causes unnecessary > stress in our community. Adobe may not be investing in Flash in a way to > compete as a platform for web apps, but it is still spending serious money > on Flash. It would look really bad for Adobe and major browser vendors to > “break the web” by somehow making Flash not work, so one can really expect > Flash to work in some form in browsers for as far into the future as > anyone ever needs to predict. > > And, Adobe continues to pay me and some others to work on Flex and I can > draw on all kinds of internal resources to do that. Adobe has spent > serious money on getting Flex established and growing at Apache to ensure > that Flex can live on forever, just not as an Adobe product. > > -Alex > > On 12/9/14, 2:05 PM, "Jesse Nicholson" <ascensionsyst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >It's a bit sad to see these (or rather any) truths dismissed as FUD. Adobe > >abandoned this project, pulled flash support for what few mobile platforms > >it had left, dropped updating the flex ide, and has publicly stated in > >their roadmap that their future focus is HTML5/JS. But yeah, my comment > >that the target platform is dead is just "FUD". > > > >On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Jesse Nicholson > ><ascensionsyst...@gmail.com> > >wrote: > > > >> https://www.lifeafterflex.com/AngularJSForFlexDevelopers/ That is you, > >> right? > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Jesse Nicholson < > >> ascensionsyst...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Didn't you just publish a book to help people migrate away from Flex, > >>> implying that it's dead because it's stuck on flash? > >>> > >>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Jeffry Houser <jef...@dot-com-it.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 12/9/2014 4:23 PM, Jesse Nicholson wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I also disagree that the value of flex "is an extension of Flash". I > >>>>> believe that's actually it's curse. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> It is a desert topping and a floor wax. ( > http://www.break.com/video/ > >>>> ugc/snl-new-shimmer-commercial-704661 ) > >>>> > >>>> My perception is that reliance on the Flash Platform is a double > >>>>edged > >>>> sword in today's technical climate; it has benefits and drawbacks. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Jeffry Houser > >>>> Technical Entrepreneur > >>>> http://www.jeffryhouser.com > >>>> 203-379-0773 > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Jesse Nicholson > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Jesse Nicholson > >> > > > > > > > >-- > >Jesse Nicholson > > -- Jesse Nicholson
