Flex to me is: 1. Cross browser/platform 2. MXML. 3. Modularity 4. Spark architecture
Aside from the rich UI library, I think that those 4 dots make Flex unique. If we port that to any other language it'll still be Flex to me. J On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: > Let me ask you this first: what, in your opinion, is Flex? > > EdB > > > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:12 PM, sébastien Paturel > <sebpatu.f...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > With that logic, why flex in AS4, or flex in Haxe or whatever not AS3, > > would make it not to be Flex anymore? > > > > I understand the point about the large existing code base in AS3 and the > > need to port to another language. > > But when Adobe chose to change from AS2 to AS3 a lot of people ported > > their code, because it was required. > > When Adobe changed to Spark, it also needed some rewrite to be able to > > gain on new capabilities. > > And if we start a rewrite from scratch, it will be hard to keep > everything > > even in AS3 usable as is or am i wrong? > > And if people want to use flex for cross platform, and especially HTML5, > > you saif yourself that if we wanted to be able to get existing flex apps > > and compile them directly to HTML5 was a dream. > > Meaning that if people want to gain from new flex capabilities, it will > be > > with new project code, whether it is AS3 or something else. > > > > The questions are: > > - Do we have efficient solutions to keep AS3 and be able to cross compile > > to every platforms swf, HTML5, native iOS and native Android? > > For example using Haxe gives a lot of advantages in that regard because > > theres already a lot of work done for cross platform port and efficiency, > > and theres a large community around it. > > The essence of flex is more to be cross platform, than it is AS3 right? > so > > if we don't have efficient solution to cross compile AS3 to platforms > other > > than Adobe runtimes, its a matter of life and death choice: > > do we prefer keep it in AS3 to keep the existing third party code base, > or > > do we want to survive with new language and stay cross platform but > require > > some rewrites. > > > > - Do we want flex to be tight to an abandonned language as AS3? It is > like > > if you were trying to keep an AS2 framework in an AS3 world. > > > > - Don't we want Apache flex to be as free as possible and get rid of > Adobe > > technology dependency, meaning AS, flash player, and AIR? > > > > > > Le 15/11/2012 22:26, Alex Harui a écrit : > > > > > >> > >> On 11/15/12 12:24 PM, "sébastien Paturel" <sebpatu.f...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> So it means that Flex in AS2 was not flex? > >>> > >> It was then, but now now. > >> > >>> > >>> Le 15/11/2012 20:50, Alex Harui a écrit : > >>> > >>>> > >>>> On 11/15/12 11:44 AM, "sébastien Paturel" <sebpatu.f...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Why do you thing that using AS4 is the better choice? > >>>>> It brings me back to the thread (what is the essence of Flex?) In my > >>>>> opinion, flex is not tight to actionscript. > >>>>> > >>>> IMO, Flex is AS3. My assumption is that there are large bodies of AS > >>>> business logic that folks are not wanting to port to something else. > Of > >>>> course, that assumption could be incorrect. > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > -- > Ix Multimedia Software > > Jan Luykenstraat 27 > 3521 VB Utrecht > > T. 06-51952295 > I. www.ixsoftware.nl >
