>...When the little guy was pushed out.
> Most projects can't create components for the project. Most projects use
> components to build the project. That's why they are called components.
I need to respond to this one separately because I think this point is
absolutely false and incorrect.
In the old framework you had a List and a HorizontalList.
<mx:List/> <mx:HorizontalList/>
Now you have to type this:
<s:List/>
<s:List>
<s:layout>
<s:HorizontalLayout/>
</s:layout>
</s:List>
So, to clarify, the difference in this syntax pushes the little guy out? These
extra lines of code are the difference between success and failure?
To me, that can't be true. If anything, while more verbose Spark is infinitely
friendlier to the little guy. In mx, as soon as you wanted to do anything
different, your only choice was to hire a component developer to
extend/copy/rewrite these classes. Take for example a circular or carousel
list. You can create a layout object for a circular list in a hundred lines of
code in Spark. Since I did this in mx, I will let you know it's a thousand
plus. If you wanted to change the headers of a datagrid in mx, several hundred
lines of cut and paste plus maintaining a component extension version to
version of framework changes. In Spark, you change a skin. Sorry, to me spark
is verbose not harder, and it doesn't push anyone out. Its friendlier to
businesses who do not have the budget or dedicated staff for component
development.
BTW, if the extra lines bother someone, then create a library calls spark
basic, which does nothing but extend list and set the horizontal layout... then
the syntax is nearly identical.
IMO, the complaining about spark doesn't address the actual issue. There is
nothing harder about it. It is different. The things I mentioned earlier in
this thread have absolutely nothing to do with how mx or spark would be used by
the average developer. It is all internal architecture and doing so would in
no way affect someone who didn't want to use it.
Mike
