Flex: The Unix Geek's Ideal Flash Environment(benjisimon.blogspot.com)
benjisimon.blogspot.com
Flex: The Unix Geek's Ideal Flash Environment
http://benjisimon.blogspot.com/2008/09/flex-unix-geeks-ideal-flash-environment.html
20 comments
There's also haxe (http://www.haxe.org), which we're using to good effect at justin.tv.
justin.tv - nice :-)
-- Just another haXe fan over here
-- Just another haXe fan over here
That's awesome. Do you guys post on the compiler list?
I haven't yet, but I plan on it. I already have a few small patches I'd love to get rolled back into haxe.
How do flex and haxe compare to one another?
"For those who don't know, Flex allows you to write XML and JavaScript and compile it to a .swf instead of using the traditional GUI timeline based tools." uhm... you write ActionScript3, not javascript. Different beasts and likely to remain so given the current fragmentation in ecmascript recommendations.
flash, regardless of any development environment, is not ideal to any unix geek.
The article is focused on developing Flex using Emacs, but probably also worth mentioning that the non-free Flex development environment (Flex Builder) is Eclipse-based.
I've never truly used it in anger, but I found it extremely good. It's US$250 or something last I checked.
If you're more of an IDE-type, worth checking out.
I've never truly used it in anger, but I found it extremely good. It's US$250 or something last I checked.
If you're more of an IDE-type, worth checking out.
I'm an Actionscript developer by profession, and having recently moved into Flex work I can strongly recommend both the Flex framework and Flex Builder -- at least, if you choose to create content for the Flash Player at all. The programming model is worlds ahead of what Flash developers have been putting up with for the past decade; they made clear and effective efforts to make it work like the languages, frameworks, and systems professional developers are already familiar with.
Since Actionscript 3 has optional static typing, and contains little-documented but very real implementations of closures and functional programming, it can be written as a Java-like OO language, as a Javascript-like dynamic language, or as a clunky but at least workable functional language; and the XML-based GUI-layout component, MXML, is surprisingly powerful and consistent.
Even though Flash is where my paycheck comes from, I am not at all convinced that it is the ideal format for most web content, so I won't argue with anyone who hates it. But anyone who has avoided Flash because of its programming model should definitely give Flex a second look.
(As for Flex Builder, I use it for its debugger and compiler, while doing heavy-duty text editing in jEdit. I mean, it doesn't even have parenthesis balancing, for chrissake.)
Since Actionscript 3 has optional static typing, and contains little-documented but very real implementations of closures and functional programming, it can be written as a Java-like OO language, as a Javascript-like dynamic language, or as a clunky but at least workable functional language; and the XML-based GUI-layout component, MXML, is surprisingly powerful and consistent.
Even though Flash is where my paycheck comes from, I am not at all convinced that it is the ideal format for most web content, so I won't argue with anyone who hates it. But anyone who has avoided Flash because of its programming model should definitely give Flex a second look.
(As for Flex Builder, I use it for its debugger and compiler, while doing heavy-duty text editing in jEdit. I mean, it doesn't even have parenthesis balancing, for chrissake.)
Please tell me that all those crazy redundant type declarations I see in AS3 code is optional too? IMHO AS1 started as a broken but usable language then AS2 and AS3 came along and added layers of Java-style bureaucracy for no good reason. AS should've been more like Javacsript with simple duck-typing and first order functions, etc. Flash developers are web developers who know and understand Javascript. Why on earth AS3 has to become so different then Javascript is beyond me.
Actually, ActionScript can be an extremely elegant and powerful language, when coded "correctly". The vast majority of Flex developers come from either a design or Java background, and as a result you find that most ActionScript RIA code adheres to strict application frameworks, static typing, etc...and rarely takes advantage of the interesting parts.
ActionScript has first-order functions, allows for dynamic typing, and utilizes class as well as prototype inheritance, even for built-in classes. This means you can do neat things to the prototype object associated with any object - even the Function object itself.
Just because the majority of people developing in ActionScript don't utilize the functionality doesn't mean it doesn't exist! Take a minute to look into the language yourself - you might be very surprised.
ActionScript has first-order functions, allows for dynamic typing, and utilizes class as well as prototype inheritance, even for built-in classes. This means you can do neat things to the prototype object associated with any object - even the Function object itself.
Just because the majority of people developing in ActionScript don't utilize the functionality doesn't mean it doesn't exist! Take a minute to look into the language yourself - you might be very surprised.
Definitely. I sat in on a Flash user group meeting last Wednesday (shouts to any FlashcodersNY folks), where Alan Shaw gave a fascinating presentation on prototype-based inheritance in AS3. One of the tricks he showed off involved having one class add methods to the prototypes of other classes at compile time -- to get the same effect with the Java-like static-typed OO that AS3 <i>appears</i> to encourage, you'd need a veritable bouquet of Command and Factory structures. Instead, sprinkling a little prototype stuff in among the traditional OO allowed this particular trick to rest all in one class.
The same thing applies in a lot of areas of AS3 -- you can write a GoF-y 2001-Java-looking app with self-documenting code and doc comments and blah blah blah, and then if it's convenient, you can ALSO use first-class functions with currying and all that geek stuff for statements like (just an abstract example):
newArray = oldArray.map(convertFrom(value)).map(applyTransform(transformParams)).reverse().filter(namesFromLanguage(Language.GERMAN));
The same thing applies in a lot of areas of AS3 -- you can write a GoF-y 2001-Java-looking app with self-documenting code and doc comments and blah blah blah, and then if it's convenient, you can ALSO use first-class functions with currying and all that geek stuff for statements like (just an abstract example):
newArray = oldArray.map(convertFrom(value)).map(applyTransform(transformParams)).reverse().filter(namesFromLanguage(Language.GERMAN));
Oh that is fascinating. I just recently installed Haxe on my Ubuntu a few hours ago. Hacked a swf after reading the documentation. (Which I believe is lacking.) Do you know of any good Haxe tutorials for a newb in ActionScript land?
I'm afraid I don't know anything about haXe; it doesn't matter if it's a superior language if it makes it harder to collaborate with non-haXe Flash developers and to use Adobe tools such as the Flex SDK.
If you hate having redundant types, I highly recommend using haXe. It has type inference by first-usage so in most cases you don't need to specify any type. If you want to get around the type system it has untyped{} code blocks, casts, and the "Dynamic" type, all of which throw type safety over to the runtime interpreter.
There's also FDT, an Eclipse plugin that makes Flex Builder look like a joke in terms of how it deals with Actionscript code.
I don't know what it does with MXML though, and haven't tried the debugger in it either (I don't have the so called enterprise version).
I don't know what it does with MXML though, and haven't tried the debugger in it either (I don't have the so called enterprise version).
There is also a free IDE: http://www.flashdevelop.org/wikidocs/index.php?title=Feature... and in combination with the free Flex SDK (compiler et al) from Adobe then that's a decent combination, too.
Ha, is this guy a joke?
AS elegant? I think it's the ugliest language next to java.
AS has deep roots in Scheme!??
Also, I know you can use javascript for Flex, but can you create a swf using javascript?
AS elegant? I think it's the ugliest language next to java.
AS has deep roots in Scheme!??
Also, I know you can use javascript for Flex, but can you create a swf using javascript?
I believe the original author of JavaScript went to Netscape with the promise of doing "scheme" for the browser. It didn't happen, but he included some ideas from scheme as part of it.
See http://Weblogs.mozillazine.org/roadmap/archives/2008/04/popu... for a brief history.
See http://Weblogs.mozillazine.org/roadmap/archives/2008/04/popu... for a brief history.
Nice! I've been waiting for a write-up like this.
Because Flash has such good browser support, it's common for bits of rich functionality on sites to be implemented with little SWF files, with or without UI. Sound players, upload widgets, cross-domain sockets, even browser-proof clipboard access. I do all my web programming in Emacs, and the text-file-based development method he suggests is right on.
Because Flash has such good browser support, it's common for bits of rich functionality on sites to be implemented with little SWF files, with or without UI. Sound players, upload widgets, cross-domain sockets, even browser-proof clipboard access. I do all my web programming in Emacs, and the text-file-based development method he suggests is right on.