Flash MX 2004 Released - TRIAL DOWNLOAD NOW AVAILABLE

[gSOLO_01]

How do I convert my layer based movie to a screen / form based?

[skalie]

Any chance this beast could have it's own sub-forum? So many questions, new features etc.

[CNO]

Interesting article/op ed about product activation here:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/ebu...0278422,00.htm

On the topic of annoyances, Symantec recently announced that the latest version of its flagship Norton Antivirus software will include product activation as a mandatory install routine. Not to be outdone, Macromedia will be following the same path with Studio MX 2004. Product Activation is, of course, a marketer's term for compulsory registration, and it's something that annoys me a very great deal, primarily as I've yet to see evidence that consumers benefit in any way at all from it, and yet we're the ones who bear the burden of actually getting it up and working.

Not to mention that we're paying for it.

Thanks to JD from Macromedia for the link.

BTW - does anyone have a write-up of the Seybold Keynote? I'm wondering if Macromedia kept completely quiet about this product launch there - I'd hate to think that they just screwed over this community.

[PAlexC]

Well, I just logged on to Devnet, and you only get Flash Pro, so I can't really look at the differences between the two.

I don't know what 144 MB you're talking about, must be tutorials or something, says 66 here.

Unfortunately, I won't have a chance to test it out for awhile.

[PAlexC]

Originally posted by gSOLO_01
DevNet Pro Subscribers should be able to download the new stuff already...

Not until all the other DevNet Pro subscribers stop downloading everything.

[tonypa]

Originally posted by PAlexC
Well, I just logged on to Devnet, and you only get Flash Pro, so I can't really look at the differences between the two.

Its same trial file for both, you can switch between Pro and Normal version any time while you use trial.

[gSOLO_01]

Originally posted by PAlexC
Not until all the other DevNet Pro subscribers stop downloading everything.

Go download the trials. Plugin the serial that's on your subscription page.

[Retropunk]

AH! WHEW!

[FPChris]

Got the trial version. Not to sound like I'm complaining
but here are just the standout things I've initially have
issues with. I do think this is a fine release.

The bad...

Love the forms. But I think this and the slide show options
should have been seperate products that create fla's. It could
be that because they don't 'feel' like Flash it will take
some getting used too. Might be ok in the long run.

When you create an actionscript file it is put in its
own tabbed window for easily going back and forth.
Nice. However, the disabling/re-enabling of all toolbars
across two monitors gets REAL annoying fast when your
switching between a script and the movie.

The extended effects editors are REAL SLOW on a 1.2 ghz AMD
to the point of not even wanting to use them. They
take FOREVER just to open and the controls for each
are very poor. The need to click 'update' to preview every
change is highly annoying. I can't see users paying for
extendeded plug-ins that would perform like this.
Not good and by far the worst new feature.
Sad because this was a product option we were going to
look into developing.

I don't like that all the default component skins remind
me of RealPlayer One. Yuk!

Application development is still a tough sell without
some real File IO functions. They won't get the VB and C++
programmers until they do.

I kind of liked having the Help in a broswer like in MX.
Having it inside now is really cramping my screen space.
Leading to...

I'm now considering a third monitor.

Chris

[yasunobu13]

For those of you wanting to see more AS2 OOP samples, I put together a Node and Stack classes. (This is always my first project when learning new languages).

File: Node.as

code:

---

class Node{

	private var data:Number;

	private var next:Node;

	

	public function Node(d:Number, n:Node){

		// no support for constructor/function overloading?

		// if the value is not supplied, then the variables are set as undefined

		this.data = d;

		this.next = n;

	}



	public function getData():Number{

		return this.data;

	}

	

	public function getNext():Node{

		return this.next;

	}	

	

	public function setData(d:Number):Void{

		this.data = d;

	}

	

	public function setNext(n:Node):Void{

		this.next = n;

	}

}

---

File: Stack.as

code:

---

class Stack{

	private var head:Node;

	

	public function Stack(n:Node){

		// no support for constructor/function overloading?

		// if the value is not supplied, then the variables are set as undefined/null

		this.head = n;

	}

	

	public function push(n:Number):Void{

		if(this.head == null){

			this.head = new Node(n);

		}

		

		else {

			var tempNode = new Node(n);

			tempNode.setNext(this.head);

			this.head = tempNode;

		}

	}

	

	public function pop():Number{

		if(this.head == null){

			return null;

		}

		

		else {

			var tempNum:Number = this.head.getData();

			this.head = this.head.getNext();

			// garbage collection happens, no need to delete old Node

			return tempNum;

		}

	}

}

---

File: test.fla - in actions of first frame

code:

---

s = new Stack();



for(i:Number = 0; i < 10; i++){

	s.push(i);

}

st = new String("N");

s.push(st); // still works even though method requires a Number

trace(s.pop());



for(i = 0; i < 12; i++){

	trace(s.pop());

}

---

output:

N
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
null
null

Notice that constructor/method overloading doesn't seem to be supported (at least I couldn't find a hack for it). Also, even though the Stack.push(n:Number) method requires a Number, it had no problems accepting a String. Garbage collection clean up the old Node's when nothing was referring to it.

Node.as and Stack.as were in seperate files in the same directory as test.fla. There was no need to specify their location for compile into swf.

j

[yasunobu13]

Here is the source from my previous post

[gSOLO_01]

st:String = new String("N");

Right? ...and shouldn't the objects be void also? Node():Void

AS2 isn't going to be as complicated as some thought it would be.

[yasunobu13]

Originally posted by gSOLO_01
st:String = new String("N");

Right? ...and shouldn't the objects be void also? Node():Void

AS2 isn't going to be as complicated as some thought it would be.

I tried

code:

---

st:String = new String("N");

---

but it errored, also

code:

---

public function Node(){...

---

is the constructor, and therefore cannot return (even though returning void is exactly the same, it's typical OOP) So saying that it returns Void will produce an error

j

[FPChris]

Originally posted by gSOLO_01
st:String = new String("N");

Right? ...and shouldn't the objects be void also? Node():Void

AS2 isn't going to be as complicated as some thought it would be.

what's the point of new String ("N")? if you have to tell
it the type to begin with? It seems like overkill.


st:String = "N"; //why not this?

Chris

[yasunobu13]

Originally posted by FPChris
what's the point of new String ("N")? if you have to tell
it the type to begin with? It seems like overkill.


st:String = "N"; //why not this?

Chris

in OOP the way to declare class instances is usually

Type name = new Type(...);

so, the AS2 translation would be
st:String = new String("N");

but AS2 is not very stringly typed, like when I pushed st, it wouldn't have worked id AS2 was stringly typed

The reason why I did
st = new String("N");

was to show that it is indeed an instance of the String class and not a Number. The same would have happened if I did
st = "N";

I'm guessing. It was merely to enforce a point of how typed the language is.

j

[gSOLO_01]

Yea, it's just that I've seen in alot of the examples, things like...

_obj:Object = new Object();
_nbr:Number = new Number();
_thg:Thing = new Thing();

et cetera... it's not neccicary, but it's the correct syntax.

[FPChris]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Also is 'var' even needed now ins AS2?
I've seen examples that use it
with AS2. It would also seem pointless.

I want to go with only AS2 and not some
twisted mix with AS1.

yasunobu13

Type name = new Type(...); in C++ would make sense if
you are declaring a pointer like:

MyClass *MyTest = new MyClass();

I can fully understand the need for the syntax here as
the pointer type has to be declared properly as well as
the object being allocated to it. I guess with the
st:String = new String("N"); I was thinking of st as
a variable not a pointer.

The other thing I'll need to get used to is the type
being closest to the equal sign. I can already see me
mistaking a class name for the variable name out of habit.
I suppose I get used to it.

Chris

[jcostello]

When creating methods and instances, the syntax is somewhat backwards compared to Java.

for example this is how you would declare a method with a return value:

function myFunction(varName:varType):returnType{
   arguments;
   return thisValue;
}

and to instantiate your class you do it like this:

var instanceName:ClassName = new ClassName(constructor values);

I have to admit that I'm liking this a LOT. With OOP, the sky's the limit as far as application programming. I spent about ten minutes playing with AS2.0 and then I placed my order.

[goose2000]

Didn't realize this but MX Pro won't run on Winodws Me?
Damn. "This OS is not supported, read the release notes..."

Well, I know I'm a dumbass for running ME, but jeeze. Guess I'll have to redo the hard drive and start fresh on 2K.

[yasunobu13]

Originally posted by FPChris
Thanks for clearing that up.

Also is 'var' even needed now ins AS2?
I've seen examples that use it
with AS2. It would also seem pointless.

I want to go with only AS2 and not some
twisted mix with AS1.

yasunobu13

Type name = new Type(...); in C++ would make sense if
you are declaring a pointer like:

MyClass *MyTest = new MyClass();

I can fully understand the need for the syntax here as
the pointer type has to be declared properly as well as
the object being allocated to it. I guess with the
st:String = new String("N"); I was thinking of st as
a variable not a pointer.

The other thing I'll need to get used to is the type
being closest to the equal sign. I can already see me
mistaking a class name for the variable name out of habit.
I suppose I get used to it.

Chris

technically, var wasn't needed in MX, it just allowed for some sort of garbage collection at the end of the function.

'MyClass *MyTest = new MyClass();'

Here MyTest is a pointer to an instance of the class. That's the more important part, is that st isn't a variable, but instead is an instance of the String class.