On 1/10/12 3:16 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
Alex, IMO, there was a huge necesity for the new spark component set due to
multiple problems in MX. God methods with lots of mixed code and without
ante separation of concerns that produces lots of lines of code, very
poorly design that makes very difficult or impossible to extend the code,
etc..
I agree that MX had lots of issues. Could they have been solved
incrementally vs building a whole new set? We know for sure that Adobe was
unable to complete the new Spark set over several years.
Note that at the same time I'm saying we could have incrementally fixed MX,
I am also saying I'm going to start my own new set in my whiteboard space.
So I'm not saying that incremental is always the way to go, I was supporting
Doug claiming that Spark was largely tied to FC.
Hearing this from you now it would explain why in the beginning the
Spark set was small, lightweight and manageable and then all the
sudden the classes got huge and out of control. I stand corrected that
there wasn't an agenda building that set.
To bad, wasted a lot of developers time just trying to make a product
that is dead now. Not like we as component developers had any choice
in the matter, now we do.
Mike
