I meant I cant see the relevance of making open source the framework regarding the comparison with how Flex could be cross-compiled to JS.
Since there is a core of developers in the community who would like to work on this, discussing where Flex should be used in their topic is slightly wrong. My email was just a proposal for these guys to think of what GWT does so that they can be "inspired". On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:59 AM, Alain Ekambi <jazzmatad...@gmail.com>wrote: > You dont see the relevance of Google making GWT opensource ? > > Use the right tool for the right job. > Why use GWT for a small app ? > > > This is the same for Flex. I see people using Flash/Flex where they should > not then complain about performance. > > If you are not targeting AIR or the Desktop browser you should not even > think about Flex/Flash as an option. > That s the way it is(for now). > > Now concerning compiling Flex/AS3 to JS i m not a fan of that. There s > nothing wrong with Flex as the way it is now. If i want to do mobile > webapps Flex is def not the framework i will think about. Regardless of it > it compiles to JS or not. > > > 2012/8/30 Nick Tsitlakidis <ni...@perfectedz.com> > > > From my experience, using it for a simple site or a small app would > > possibly create overbloated js indeed. But when it comes to middle or > large > > scale apps the code is heavily optimized and the end result makes sense > in > > terms of size and complexity. > > > > Regarding Google making the framework fully open source, that is correct, > > but I fail to see the relevance. If anything, this is one more similarity > > with Flex in Apache. > > > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Carlos Rovira < > > carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> wrote: > > > > > AFAIK Google has made the same with GWT as Adobe with Flex. But GWT > > > has the problem to generate overbloated JS code... > > > > > > 2012/8/30 Nick Tsitlakidis <ni...@perfectedz.com>: > > > > Hello guys, I'm following all the topics here but I post rarely > because > > > > most of the times someone else has said something that I agree with > > 100%. > > > > > > > > This time though, I was trying to think about similar technologies > > which > > > > are either compiled to js or they are converted in js in some other > > way. > > > > So I thought about GWT. The appproach google has taken with it is > very > > > > similar to Flex. They even have a skin architecture equivalent. > > > > What I'm trying to say is, what if we could achieve something > similar. > > > They > > > > seem to be translating Java to JS without a problem because they > > exclude > > > > Java features that are not compatible. > > > > It's a small Java subset, I'll give you that, but developing in Java > > and > > > > creating skins just like in Flex is way more interesting and agile > > > compared > > > > to pure HTML and JS. > > > > > > > > As far as I can tell, both languages are not that different (Java and > > > AS3). > > > > > > > > Any thoughts on this? > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Om <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Michael A. Labriola < > > > >> labri...@digitalprimates.net> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > >Can you please elaborate? > > > >> > > > > >> > >The point I was trying to make was that HTML5 language itself is > > not > > > >> > designed to be extensible. Using Javascript does not really count > > (in > > > >> this > > > >> > >context) > > > >> > > > > >> > >As far as using the DOM, I assume you mean the Microdata format. > > > This > > > >> > results in non-standard HTML most of the time and is not supported > > > across > > > >> > browsers. And it deals more with extending data semantics and > >not > > > >> > functional extension. > > > >> > > > > >> > In flex, IMO, we worried too much about extension and not enough > > about > > > >> > composition. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> I think that is besides the point. There is nothing in MXML that > > > prevents > > > >> composition. It is just that the current set of Flex components are > > > built > > > >> like that. We can fix that given time and effort. There is no need > > to > > > >> structurally modify MXML to achieve this. > > > >> > > > >> Whereas with HTML(5) there is nothing in the standard that will let > us > > > do > > > >> specialization (via inheritance or composition) I cannot dream up > new > > > >> elements and expect a browser to understand it out of the box. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > So long as I have a good series of patterns (and the discipline to > > > follow > > > >> > them) then I can look at the HTML DOM elements as the Atoms of the > > > >> universe > > > >> > and assembly them with some bonds (JavaScript) to make an element. > > And > > > >> then > > > >> > in turn assemble those to make any application. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> Right, we need Javascript to do this kind of extension to HTML. To > do > > > this > > > >> in the Flex world would mean that we either > > > >> > > > >> * Bring in JS as a language we support in Flex > > > >> or > > > >> * Keep Flex as it is (i.e. Actionscript based) and have a AS to JS > > > >> translation layer. > > > >> > > > >> The latter is a better approach because of various reasons ranging > > from > > > JS > > > >> not being a real OOP language, no package organization possible, etc > > (we > > > >> all know why AS is better than JS) > > > >> > > > >> I think being able to code in MXML and Actionscript would be a key > > goal > > > of > > > >> this cross-compilation effort, right? Unless we want to > fundamentally > > > >> change what 'Flex' means. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > So, the key is not trying to extend the Atom but trying to > assemble > > > it in > > > >> > useful ways and allow those to be extended or recomposed. So far, > I > > > have > > > >> > found few limitations of this approach and often times ended up > much > > > >> > happier. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> I definitely agree with you on this. But again, this requires > > > Javascript > > > >> to assemble things. My above points still hold good as well. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Mike > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> Om > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Nick Tsitlakidis, > > > > > > > > CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD. > > > > www.perfectedz.com > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Carlos Rovira > > > Director de Tecnología > > > M: +34 607 22 60 05 > > > F: +34 912 35 57 77 > > > CODEOSCOPIC S.A. > > > Avd. del General Perón, 32 > > > Planta 10, Puertas P-Q > > > 28020 Madrid > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Nick Tsitlakidis, > > > > CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD. > > www.perfectedz.com > > > -- Nick Tsitlakidis, CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD. www.perfectedz.com
