It seems gmail has included a link to a video from a sentence I removed. Please disregard.
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:17 AM, jude <flexcapaci...@gmail.com> wrote: > Geez guys. Why is everyone against design views? I'm all for Flash > Catalyst. I'm all for what it was trying to solve. I agree, it wasn't > complete but neither is Flash Builder or the Spark Flex SDK. > > I don't know about you but I'm tired of writing out Path data="M 0 0 L 0 > 16 L 16 8 L 0 0 Z" to create a simple triangle. You shouldn't have to do > that. In Ps and Ai what you see is what you get. It's setup so you can > change a property or effect and see the change instantly. It's fast. How > much time do you waste by the change property, style or effect, compile > (+/- 15s), preview in browser, rinse, repeat process? It's sooooo > agonizingly slow. I mean I think most of us come from a design background > and designer tools??? > > Fc had a timeline and effects preview. It let you see the different states > and skins. It created the FXG and MXML and import and export of Ps and Ai > art. I don't like having to create 5 skins to change the look of a scroll > bar button. With Flash Catalyst I didn't have to worry about that. > > I think that's been an advantage of Flex and Flash over HTML / JS is that > there is a design / debugging tool with declarative markup or the promise > of one (or there was). > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-brqopywIB0&feature=youtube_gdata> > In time I think it would have been a kick ass tool. I'm glad they kept a > design builder tool in mind for Spark. I know a lot of coders that get so > comfortable in coding and doing everything in code including design > elements that they forget the benefits of a design tool and design first > approach. > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Doug McCune <d...@dougmccune.com> wrote: > >> The saddest thing to me is how much time and effort went into building an >> entirely new (yet still incomplete) component model (Spark) that was built >> all around the idea of Catalyst. That's not to say that the Spark >> architecture doesn't have good ideas when you remove Catalyst from the >> picture, but the amount of time that went into designing it to work with >> the Fc tooling was all for naught. I have to believe many decisions would >> have been made differently, and a lot of time would have been invested >> differently had the Catalyst tooling support not been the priority. >> >> Personally I'm happy to see Catalyst go, and would have been happier to >> see >> it go long ago. >> > >
