To me the question is how will people react if you tell them you’re doing it in FlexJS vs. FooJS. I think in either case you will get a response of “what’s that”.
What’s going to get a better explanation? “I’m doing it in a relatively unknown framework but one I like.” Or “I’m doing it in a new framework built from the ground up optimized for Javascript built on the concepts which made Flex successful in its time.” To me, the latter response sounds more compelling. Hopefully FlexJS will get enough traction that it will become known for its own strengths and this point will become moot. Harbs > On Sep 13, 2017, at 11:29 AM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > 2017-09-12 21:12 GMT+02:00 Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>: > >> >> >> Do you have examples of Apache Flex or FlexJS getting bad press? It would >> make your argument more persuasive. >> >> > There's nothing published. I'm talking about customer meetings where you > expose that you can use "Flex" and your potential customer looks to you > with poker face since "Flex" is now considered an old technology from 2008. > The fact is almost all Flex developers had to switch to HTML and there's > almost no projects in Flex done today. > > > >>> >>> In the other hand, we should look at our competitors : Angular, React, >> Vue, >>> Dart,... it's all marketing: the name, the website, if we don't play well >>> our cards, don't expect to have a widely used technology >> >> You mean like Beads, Bend or Strands? >> > > Yes, I proposed in other thread ROYALE or CROWN as good candidates for its > various implications in the strand/beads concept (crown with jewels as an > icon) and for the old relationship with the first flex codename at > macromedia (that was in fact Royale) > > I'll be more happy to go with a name, icon, website done that would express > our ideas in a modern, clean and beautiful way. > > >>> >>> In the other hand I can live with old "FlexJS" name, if people does not >>> want a change, but these means to me that FlexJS will hardly get >> considered >>> in the mainstream. >>> >>> Just my 2 >> >> More than that ;-) >> > > Thanks > > Carlos > > >> >>
