On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:48 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Overall, I think FlexJS is going in the right direction. We just need to > keep at it and create a minimum viable product and keep making regular > releases. By the time we are ready, I believe AngularJS and React would > have primed the tech community for the FlexJS paradigm. > > Thanks, > Om > > I did research into Angular JS 1.x and 2.x this last week. I actually spent 2 hours last night comparing their home page examples to what what I would have to do in FlexJS to get the same Todo list example. (this is where I ran into the databinding bug). Om, when I wrote the foundation of FlaconJX, I made it as modular as possible, also following the obvious Falcon front and back end. This means, that our compiler is truly flexible when it comes to down the road tools(if needed). You were right in your previous post, "Admit it, you like it". Yeah I do, I have always been a tool maker and we all know the greatest thing for a tool make is to have their tools used. I have also laways been a UI component developer since about 2003, so as you say, I love drawing things on screen(technical draftsman background) I could really cook up any majic we needed if we needed it. I have seen your persistent advocation of FlexJS, so I can tell you that I will put in a lot of time, just to see if we can start a fire. I really think there is something here to light, it just needs TLC, testing and time. But I agree, RIA is being replaced with "SPA" haha isn't that funny, single page application. As the paradigm changes to "evolve" around javascript, FlexJS is definitely in the same ball park to do the same things others do. Mike > > [1] http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/webcomponents/customelements/ > [2] https://facebook.github.io/jsx/ > [3] > > http://blogs.msdn.com/b/typescript/archive/2015/03/05/angular-2-0-built-on-typescript.aspx > > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Michael Schmalle < > teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > That's just it, we live in a stereotypical world, where it's not fair but > > it's the truth and we have to play that game. > > > > IMHO, changing the name of something has no effect on the validity of the > > technology. FlexJS will succeed because it solves a problem and solves it > > well. > > > > I really don't know why I am on this list right now being away from two > > years. Oh wait, yeah I do, I got sick of how verbose Java is when I want > to > > do simple things. I got sick of how convoluted Java's UI stuff is on > mobile > > as well. A Feathers release kept popping up in my Facebook stream, every > > month I kept seeing it, then one day I broke down and busted out the AS > IDE > > again and jumped into Feathers. > > > > I have created 5 times more prototypes and base apps using the auido > > framework I use using Feathers. Is it because of Feathers? Yes and No, > Josh > > is an extremely talented framework engineer and his UI framework is > > pricelsss but it also leverages ActionScript for speed of development and > > there IS a reason he is taking the time to get MXML working for Feathers. > > > > The no part just has to do with how fast and encapsulated the > ActionScript > > API is, the sandbox nature of it. > > > > Alex, your component framework is very nice. I have a feeling your spent > > awhile deciding to go in the direction you did but, I think your gamble > of > > the Application setup and basing it on MVC was the right choice. > > > > What I want to do in the next couple months is test the crap out of all > the > > base UI components and make sure they work, JUST WORK from as to in the > > browser. Liek the same way I started testing FalconJX, from the most > > granular instance out, I think that is why the compiler works so well > > today, it's because of thos first 300 or so tests at the expression and > > statement level. This is what we HAVE to do with FlexJS. > > > > We need a couple hooks that tell the community, the FlexJS API was like > the > > ActionScript API you loved, it's sandboxed and just WORKS in the browser. > > > > Note; I am no javascript guru, I am going to have to learn a lot about it > > so I can actually test it.\ > > > > Well, that is my ramble for today. I just hope we can keep some spirited > > devs that like working in the trenches where there isn't much "external > > validation" for a while, that is what it's going to take for this project > > to succeed and it really needs to happen before 2016. The whole ne ES6 > and > > stuff, lots of change on the horizon. > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/15/15, 11:04 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <teotigraphix...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >I know the whole open source mantra, but it would be nice to work on > > > >something that gets used by people. FlexJS is another question mark > > > >because > > > >on top of the technology transforming things and not just HTML/JS > > > >framework, you have to wipe the idea out of peoples head this IS NOT > > Flash > > > >and Adobe, it's ActionScript and MXML, a design pattern, just like all > > the > > > >other frameworks an automated tools out there for JavaScript > currently. > > > > > > Agree. I’d consider changing its name from FlexJS to something without > > > Flex in it if that would help, but I still like the association of Flex > > > with AS and MXML and think that we might get our first customers from > > > former Flex folks. > > > > > > Then if we can show that these customers start cranking out apps faster > > > than folks using other frameworks and word gets out about that, then we > > > will have won. We have a lot of code to write before that happens, so > > > thanks to anyone who helps out. > > > > > > -Alex > > > > > > > > >
