Re: bay area folks and flash

[imagene...@gmail.com]

Javascript is not a better platform for applications or games. Look at EA's
Command and Conquer online game. It's performance is horrible and it's just
a turn based game.

A lot of WEB developers have been forced to learn javascript because it's a
standard and you're pigeonholed into it. They are screaming they want
better UI frameworks and continued development because everyone knows how
awful coding in mishmash of html/javascript is. There is a very vocal
community of WEB designers who are screaming for a standardized Javascript
display list framework. Give it about 5 years and they'll probably start
screaming Javascript is dead and everyone should code for Native Client.

Unless internet consumer's have a massive aversion to Flash games which I
don't think they do, I don't understand why Adobe is second guessing
itself. Convincing Flash developers, that Javascript is a *better* runtime
isn't going to work I don't think.

Consumer internet application are not written in Flash. Flash is mainly
used for games and internal applications with Flex. Saying Javascript is
sometimes the better choice, it sounds like Javascript is a better choice
for either games or internal RIAs. Neither of which is true. Yah,
Javascript is the better choice if you're making a consumer internet
applications where users don't want to load Flash for their social
networking fix. At this point, there is no good free Javascript UI
framework. There is Kendo UI, JQuery UI and Sencha. Only JQuery is free.
None of them are as comprehensive as Flex. They don't have containers for
one thing. Even if they were as comprehensive, there isn't any good reason
to write something in Javascript. The necessary APIs for rich UI's are
finite. These equivalent API's are found in Java Swing, Windows UI APIs,
Linux UI APIs. The point is that they are finite, there aren't any magical
new developments that Javascript will bring. UI APIs are stable. The Flex
API is more or less complete. A Javascript equivalent will not be much
better.

Fundamentally the only scary part of Adobe's announcements is that they
sound like:
We'll try to monetize Flash
If it doesn't work than we can't tell you what's going to happen. We can't
tell you we'll open source it. We might just stop developing the API. We
might take more aggressive steps to monetize it. We might end it
permanently. I think this is what some flash developers are hearing. In
reality though, Flash will obviously not be discontinued. Look at
Shockwave, it has been in zombie mode for years.

Then again, there is the "lure" of javascript. We all know, pretty soon,. a
developer will release a great Javascript game that will make a ton of
money and become super popular and than it might fuel momentum in
Javascript. Okay I'll give you that.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Mike Chambers  wrote:

> Yep. Agreed.
>
> We had announced last year that we planned to monetize alchemy, and then
> announced earlier this year that as part of that we would be removing the
> domainMemory API.
>
> Based on community feedback we changed those plans so that domainMemory is
> still available (and officially supported), and that it would only be a
> premium feature when used in conjunction with Stage3D.
>
> mike chambers
>
> m...@adobe.com
>
> On Apr 17, 2012, at 1:02 PM, Tink wrote:
>
> >
> > On 17 Apr 2012, at 20:37, Mike Chambers wrote:
> >
> >
> > IMO if you want to gain back trust a credibility with developers you
> still need to be clearer and more open about your plans. It should have
> been made plain and clear that some of these new features would come at a
> cost.
> >
> > Tink
>
>

Re: bay area folks and flash

[imagene...@gmail.com]

Objectively better from a development standpoint. *

Consumers*

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:11 PM, imagene...@gmail.com
wrote:

> Javascript is not a better platform for applications or games. Look at
> EA's Command and Conquer online game. It's performance is horrible and it's
> just a turn based game.
>
> A lot of WEB developers have been forced to learn javascript because it's
> a standard and you're pigeonholed into it. They are screaming they want
> better UI frameworks and continued development because everyone knows how
> awful coding in mishmash of html/javascript is. There is a very vocal
> community of WEB designers who are screaming for a standardized Javascript
> display list framework. Give it about 5 years and they'll probably start
> screaming Javascript is dead and everyone should code for Native Client.
>
> Unless internet consumer's have a massive aversion to Flash games which I
> don't think they do, I don't understand why Adobe is second guessing
> itself. Convincing Flash developers, that Javascript is a *better*runtime 
> isn't going to work I don't think.
>
> Consumer internet application are not written in Flash. Flash is mainly
> used for games and internal applications with Flex. Saying Javascript is
> sometimes the better choice, it sounds like Javascript is a better choice
> for either games or internal RIAs. Neither of which is true. Yah,
> Javascript is the better choice if you're making a consumer internet
> applications where users don't want to load Flash for their social
> networking fix. At this point, there is no good free Javascript UI
> framework. There is Kendo UI, JQuery UI and Sencha. Only JQuery is free.
> None of them are as comprehensive as Flex. They don't have containers for
> one thing. Even if they were as comprehensive, there isn't any good reason
> to write something in Javascript. The necessary APIs for rich UI's are
> finite. These equivalent API's are found in Java Swing, Windows UI APIs,
> Linux UI APIs. The point is that they are finite, there aren't any magical
> new developments that Javascript will bring. UI APIs are stable. The Flex
> API is more or less complete. A Javascript equivalent will not be much
> better.
>
> Fundamentally the only scary part of Adobe's announcements is that they
> sound like:
> We'll try to monetize Flash
> If it doesn't work than we can't tell you what's going to happen. We can't
> tell you we'll open source it. We might just stop developing the API. We
> might take more aggressive steps to monetize it. We might end it
> permanently. I think this is what some flash developers are hearing. In
> reality though, Flash will obviously not be discontinued. Look at
> Shockwave, it has been in zombie mode for years.
>
> Then again, there is the "lure" of javascript. We all know, pretty soon,.
> a developer will release a great Javascript game that will make a ton of
> money and become super popular and than it might fuel momentum in
> Javascript. Okay I'll give you that.
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Mike Chambers  wrote:
>
>> Yep. Agreed.
>>
>> We had announced last year that we planned to monetize alchemy, and then
>> announced earlier this year that as part of that we would be removing the
>> domainMemory API.
>>
>> Based on community feedback we changed those plans so that domainMemory
>> is still available (and officially supported), and that it would only be a
>> premium feature when used in conjunction with Stage3D.
>>
>> mike chambers
>>
>> m...@adobe.com
>>
>> On Apr 17, 2012, at 1:02 PM, Tink wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On 17 Apr 2012, at 20:37, Mike Chambers wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > IMO if you want to gain back trust a credibility with developers you
>> still need to be clearer and more open about your plans. It should have
>> been made plain and clear that some of these new features would come at a
>> cost.
>> >
>> > Tink
>>
>>
>

Re: What about the flex/flash pro combination - no one working pure flex

[imagene...@gmail.com]

You're assertions don't make sense. The base of Flex components is
UIComponent. Please look at the API and updateDisplayList on how to add
children to it.

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Martin Heidegger wrote:

> Well its a rather strange conversation: However.
>
> The most common way to integrate Flash applications with AS3/MXML
> application is using .swc's:
>
> You create a swc from your Flash content that contains all the content as
> class
> (you can define the classes in Flash) and then you define the swc as
> library.
>
> All other AS3/MXML can then reference to your animations/ik/etc. by using
> regular classes (like regular AS3 code in Flash would).
>
> If you want to display that content you can use a simple FlexSprite and
> add the particular
> MovieClip as child.
>
> yours
> Martin.
>
> PS.: Thats the way it always worked and I don't think this is going to
> change?!
>
>
> On 05/04/2012 00:12, איליה גזמן wrote:
>
>> I don't agree with you.
>>
>> My question is about *bugs that I found in flash builder and flash
>> professional*. In order to fix them you first most ask yourself what is
>> the
>> big picture, yes, how to manage the project?!
>>
>> Since you are creating Apache sdk now, you most provide an answer about
>> working on flex with flash together, it is going to be part from the sdk,
>> or at least it is part of flex sdk!
>>
>> So now I want to target you helping me find the answer, instead running
>> away from this topic.
>>
>> And if you do that, I want to allow my help solving this problem.
>>
>> Ilya,
>> Flex/Flash/Java/C# dev
>>
>> 2012/4/4 Jarosław 
>> Szczepankiewicz
>> >
>>
>>  As far as I understand You want to mix flex framework with flash pro
>>> animations in order to build games. I'm not sure that this is best
>>> combination. Flex Framework libraries (not to be confused with flex
>>> compiler that compiles *.as files into *.swf / AIR) is best framework
>>> for rich gui applications, forms / tabs /etc. It is not in my opinion
>>> best framework for gaming like angry birds / fpp. Althrough it is
>>> possible it is not the best tool for that. You can develop games using
>>> flex compiler with embeded assets from Flash Pro (using symbol
>>> libraries compiled into *.swf). And this is very good / productive
>>> combination that allows separation of desing / animators from
>>> developers, allowing debugging, strong typing, modularisation if
>>> needed, profiling (using Flash Builder), but using the flex framework
>>> only for game menu ui is not the right option with high overhead.
>>> There is Starling (but lacks ready to use gui library) and I believe
>>> that with combination of Flex Compiler is best tool in flashy /
>>> multiplatform game development that run on GPU.
>>>
>>> 2012/4/4 איליה גזמן:
>>>
 It's not a support question, this is about the right way working in
 flex,
 and can you work on pure flex or not. I think that best games come when
 combining flex with flash professional. And I believe that there is very
 few been done in that area, and there is lots of bugs in adobe today
 when
 trying to work like this. So I think that flex Apache is a
 good opportunity to set up new direction for flex that will have better
 support with flash pro. Eventually I believe that every flash pro

>>> developer
>>>
 today should use flex as his main project.

 2012/4/4 Alex Harui

  If you have a support question and are using Adobe Flex, please ask on
>
 the
>>>
 Adobe forums.
>
>
> On 4/3/12 10:49 PM, "איליה גזמן"  wrote:
>
>  Hi, can you please take a look on my question at stauckoverflow
>>
>>  http://stackoverflow.com/**questions/10005321/working-**
>>> with-flash-flex-strategy-a
>>>
 nd-problems
>>
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>
>
>
>