The charges agaisnt AS3

Ok, compared to you guys i am a novice, and this might not be my place to talk, but i do feel i should also state something....

When I first started flash, flash to me, was a all-in-one package, where i can touch through almost every aspect of multimedia, like drawing, animation, coding, and create a complete content. But now its a bit hard to understand, what flash actually is? Is it a program where i can create content, or is it a environment for a programming language?

Well, forget about design, if I was to assume the flash is the environment for as3, then i say, it fails badly! Now, FlashDevelop is much more friendly environment to me than flash itself when coding in flash's as3! So, now its like flash 'is' as3, a coding language, and the IDE is obsolete!

You guys say as3 is much more powerful than as2, and i agree, but what good is power, if its too hard to use it properly? as3 has power, and to utilise it you will need knowledge not only of flash but of other programming languages! Its easy for programmers, but all designers are not programmers!

You say as3 goes more in-depth, and you learn how the actual thing works? Well with all this in-depth knowledge, can you create your own as3? if yes, then why are you bothering with as3 instead of making your own language with more flexibility? What i am trying to say is, programming is not about reinventing the wheel! Somedays ago, i posted a topic about how to proceed towards making my own multiplayer server, and the response was, 'its better to use one of the servers available in market', thats true, because what matters is getting the job done!


As3 is powerful, and i believe it will be more powerful in future! But that is from a programmer's view! I say, if adobe is so bent on making life easier for programmers, then they should work on as3 separately! flash was the bridge between visual and code development, now its at a point when one will be sacrificed!

I listened through the video with Flash developer Jim Corbett and found interesting part where they talked about how splitting new AS3 IDE into F9 and F10 was good idea. Which basically means (to me) that F10 wont change much anything, its like part 2 of same thing. And by now F10 is almost done.

Dear god my head hurts. I was all excited when I saw this post and now that I am done reading it, I don't have the energy to reply LOL (I also think that reading this whole thing should have some sort of continuing education credits for the effort).

Some of the things I actually remember from the discussion:

OOP is a method of coding, not the method of coding. Not everything has to be done in an OOP style. When you read books or articles by respected experts in their field, this is often one of the first things they bring up (the when all you have is a hammer syndrome). When the tool you are using starts making simple things more complex, re-examine the choice of tools.

I would have to say having started with AS1 and watching the progression of the language, there does seem to be a bit of what i would call Java envy with the developers of the ActionScript language (think "hey hey I am an OOP language to...").

Which also lead into this other idea, that "real" programmers use OOP. Real programmers are concerned about finding an optimal solution to a given set of problems, be that OOP, procedural or otherwise (IMO). When you are more worried about making your solution adhere to some set of principles that may or may not apply simply to say you are adhering to those principles, you have lost sight of something.

I think that something have improved in the language (the event model in AS3 is infinitely better than the AS2 model). But on the other hand, somethings seem to have been made unnecessarily complex (why is there no replaceChild/replaceChildAt method that replaces the content at a specified node in the display list, why do I fist have to check if the child I want to replace is there, remove it and then add? I know someones going to say well you could write your own.... But thats exactly it. AS2 did this for you with loadMovie so i that way, it seems like something was lost that could have easily been accounted for in the new methodologies.

It seems that AS is borrowing more and more from Java, which in some cases is good, but honestly, from the little experience I have had working with Java, I wish it would borrow some ideas from AS (and if you want some examples, try implementing a listener in Java, or doing a switch statement on a string value).

There that is my two cents for the moment.

Groan.

We're going to go round in circles yet again. No doubt someone now is going to comment on how "you don't HAVE to use AS3 if you don't have to" which is true and then someone else will say circumlocutorily "No, I liked coding lazily. I want the benefits of faster execution and whatnot without doing any work."

Even though Thermo might be the answer to some peoples problems no doubt we'll complain about that too.

I don't go into these conversation expecting anything is going to be resolved. I assume most people will leave the conversation with the same views they came in with. However, as with most ****batory exercises, it is not really producing anything in the end that is the concern ;).

Very interesting thread.

I got into flash first as an illustrator. I began using actionscript because it was simple, easy to interpret, and somewhat powerful.

I don't do this for a living, I just do it for fun.

I tried developing a game in AS3. By the time I made it through the menus and into the actual engine, I was exhausted. I have some knowledge of C++, etc. But, I had been using AS1 and 2 for so long that I expected to just draw some things, reference them and make them do what I wanted.

I think that AS3 has basically split the Flash user base. People who take to OOP and programming will have fewer problems. People like me, who only scripted because it was interesting and fun, end up reverting back to what they already know.

After reading this thread, though, I think the simple solution would be for someone who is very good with OOP and AS3 to develop a group of classes that allow designers to script "lazily" in AS3.

Basically, put the power back in the hands of the designers by keeping the dirty work behind the scenes. A visual designer has a different creative process than a programmer.

But, I got into Flash because it was easy for me (as a visual person) to translate my ideas into working games. When AS2 becomes obsolete I'll basically be SOL. Time to find a new hobby?

you can code lazily in AS3 now..this is what I don't get!!!

There is nothing stopping you doing all the timeline code in the world, you need only learn a few simple things (addChild instead of attachMovie etc.) Am I the only person doing this?!!!

(and yes this conversation is going around and around in circles..)
ChrisErrorx

Chris, i think the masses are still hungry for your tutorial
But please just dont call it lazy, this 'lazy coders' label is dumb and nonsense, its stuff from those who dont know what low level is.They think this is evolution and will be happy to code in assembly when f12 cames out.

You can code in flash assembly now via Haxe. :) I only point this out to show that though you were trying to come up with a ridiculous example, there is enough actual demand for such a feature that someone went and created it.

There are definitely two very different development audiences for Flash. Actually, strike that. For the flash player. I for one would be happy to never have to deal with Flash itself or fla files again. I just like the ubiquitous player and the fact that the same people that pitch a fit over a java applet are perfectly happy to have a swf do the exact same thing.
Can both factions get along? Sure. But I strongly doubt that a single tool will be best for both.

At the end of the day, if my clients are used to paying $XXXX for Y, and in AS3 it takes 10 x as long to build the same Y, my clients will NOT want to pay 10x as much. They will think I am either trying to rip them off or I am a lousy programmer.

So I stick with AS2.

As for Malee saying we are not forced to use AS3... Not true. If you want to make anything with Adobe AIR, you need AS3. (I got around the issue by hiring someone to build a wrapper that loads an AS2 swf, but really, that is not an elegant, nor efficient solution).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray Beez

As for Malee saying we are not forced to use AS3... Not true. If you want to make anything with Adobe AIR, you need AS3. (I got around the issue by hiring someone to build a wrapper that loads an AS2 swf, but really, that is not an elegant, nor efficient solution).

---

But Adobe AIR is a different type of technology, you could use Zinc if you really wanted to develop an AS2 RIA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_malee

But Adobe AIR is a different type of technology, you could use Zinc if you really wanted to develop an AS2 RIA.

---

I realize it's a wrapper, but it's an automated package, built right into Flash IDE (once you add the extension).

Zinc will give you an EXE, but AFAIK you still have to then use another application to create an installer for your app (whereas AIR manages that as part of the platform).

To me it looks like a lot of the complaints in this thread against AS3 are because:
1) People don't want to learn a new language, which is what AS3is. It's conceptually similar but a lot of the syntax has changed for really simple stuff, understandably so, but which makes it difficult for low level users to sort of get into. Personally, if I'm going to start a project, I prefer As2 if I can because I know it will be less headache. It's sort of like why I don't use Ruby on Rails. All these webdesign sites say that Rails is so good, but I don't care because I don't think I need it. Maybe a I'm wrong, if so, then I'll learn.
2) Adobe did a poor job releasing AS3, in that they failed to bring everything from AS2 properly over. Maybe thats just a thing with sequels, like Bloodsport being better than Bloodsport 2, but I wont take as an excuse from Adobe who seems to have been using a pretty steady team. One of the first things I noticed when I got into it is that the IDE reference manual is actually worse for AS3 than it is for AS2 in terms of code examples. I would plug them in and it didn't work. That's how I learn most of my stuff. It's not so bad though because AS3 is much more open source so a lot of resources popped up on the web fast. I don't think remember being able to google up AS2 as much as I do with AS3. Adobe's transitioning to AS3 page in the help files is okay, but just the shear number of differences makes it difficult to transition. To Adobe's credit/discredit they decided to take on the language brand new here, so its understandable that along the way in development they realize, uh oh, this is going to be hard to do given the route I've chosen. And that's something all the coders here at FK can understand. Adobe's got a tight timescale and I think its a good decision to release something thats good and useful as soon as a significant group of people can use it, like why sit on that. Yeah yeah, I dont want to bring up the "non one's forcing you argument" again, but I do want to point out Adobe's responsibility at facilitating the transition.

I think people who refuse to transition will have to accept the consequences too. I dont think AS3 is that much harder to learn as a first language compared to AS2. So remembering how I was when I was younger, some kid wont be like, "oh these old people cant figure out this new technology, okay so I guess I'll boycott it too". No, you'll get left in the dust. But of course this sucks for Adobe, they wont sell as many copies, they'll lose all that built up loyalty and self-educated consumer base. Thats a lot of education, and it takes less work to transition than learn wholesale.

Also I think the value for Flash IDE is in making it really easy for developers to get the programming organized and working. I've always used the Timeline structure and the different visual object to hold code because that was a very intuitive way for me to understand whats going on and be able to go look at exactly what I wanted to in the code. Flash CS3 IDE SUCKS at organizing long lines of code I find. Why do I have to create separate .as files? The IDE should take care of that, and I understand it will in the next release. Still I liked being able to put them in the actual objects on the Stage, but they wont let me do that anymore. The way I got around that is I just go into the timeline of the movieclip and put the onenterframe and stuff in the first frame, but its a lot worse like this, because I cant just copy an object on stage and modify the code. IT demands tighter organization, but I dont want to spend time organizaing code. I want to think about my game / website / animation. If AS3 programming takes even twice the amount of code, then thats a huge jarr to my creative workflow that is much more focused on concepts rather than syntax. Thats why I liked Flash all these years, I code, but I dont have to bunker down. I'm jsut sort of going along and making what I need to make. If Flash can keep doing that they will keep me happy, and I think they will sell a lot of copies. I think thats more important than having XBOX 3D in a browser right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_malee

What I want to know is why people constantly have to have everything made "easy" for them. You get a function:

bob.removeBobForever()

what does it do behind the scenes? You will most likely never find out. Isn't it better to be able to understand what you are doing?

---

Because if its not the official solution, 'what it does behind' will give you the fake feeling of sucess
Like when grant skinner cames with all of that and still know it will not work always

why is Adobe's fancy function more successful than my custom one?

they go through the same process I do, debugging and testing.

The grant skinner article is a classic example of not being object orientated when programming, if references weren't stored and passed around all over the place there wouldn't be a problem. Everything has the ability to handle itself, and clean up after itself.

A loaded swf is able to detect when it gets removed from the stage and therefore remove any events it created. The object that created the swf is able to clean up the reference to this loaded object as well. So whats the problem? The nature of the GC is that nothing gets removed right away. Sure it stays in memory for a bit, but it doesn't just pop out and show up at random. It will only process events if you continue to let it.

If you're not able to keep up with the application you are developing, maybe you shouldn't develop it. Or learn about it more.

I see nothing wrong with AS3 at all. Its the people that try to develop in it without understanding certain concepts that taint it.

malee, what you say is wrong. you should watch some more of the videos featuring the adobe engineers and others where its admitted than even if the developer does everything right regarding using weak references, removing listeners etc there are indeed many cases where content still does NEVER get removed from ram. They add that one function now to address some of the issues but it still doesn´t work in many cases.
Again, this is highly buggy behaviour, even when a coder does everything right the content stays in ram forever in many cases.
Adobe tries to promote AS3, the new garbage collector workflow etc as cleaner and better suited for large scale projects thanks to better performance and better code and workflow structuring.
They say the old GC was way more limited than the new one. That may be true but at least the old GC did its job in way more cases than the new one.
Overall AS3 and changes coming with the new player architecture are way more error prone and usually take way longer dev times on developer side,
how is it more useful for bigger more complex projects when the thing has memory leaks all over the place?
Some people are so amazed about the cleaner api code structuring while they miss flash player is meanwhile useless for doing some of the most basic things possible with the old flash player (constantly loading/unloading dynamic content for example).

I have never had a problem with loading / unloading content. I stop all the listeners and remove all the references and nothing has ever popped up on the screen out of no where nor has any events fired off. It may be in memory as 1's and 0's but does that really matter in the end?

and did the AS2 GC really do a good job? Does anyone actually know for sure if their objects were "completely gone" from memory in AS2?, if anyone can prove to me that AS2 objects get removed from memory more than AS3 objects do then i'll eat my hat.

From all the little GC tests I've done, recording and viewing the memory from within flash and taskManager (on windows), manually flushing data, i see that the memory does clear.

Don't get me wrong, I used to love removeMovieClip(), all I knew about it was it got rid of my stuff, never knew much about how it did that or how expensive a function it was, I just accepted it. But I don't think that's what makes a good language, and by that I mean "many shortcuts".

I think possibly Adobe could give more control over the removal of objects, like in C# with Finalize methods and Destructors, maybe in AS4 we can hope for that. I just don't think bringing back a "function to rule them all" is the right direction, unless it doesn't impact on the performance of the player.

phew, time to get out of this thread before its too late ;)

maybe removeMovieClip() is the sole reason Flash has taken over the "interactive" web, Silverlight and Unity just wont have a chance if AS3 implements it

M babe, I've never seen you so emotive about a subject as you have been in this thread.

It's making me kinda hot.

Squize.

Easy tiger... :scared:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squize

M babe, I've never seen you so emotive about a subject as you have been in this thread.

It's making me kinda hot.

Squize.

---

yeah, next time there's an AS3 rip thread i'll say that AS3 sucks, so I can get out fast.

Well, my argument wasn't that AS3 sucked, it was that Adobe has made the easy-to-get-into script into another convoluted programming language.

For people who are designers, illustrators, and general novices, learning a REAL language is not interesting, nor should it be necessary to make their content interactive. That was the point of the original Flash and AS combo.

AS3 is great... It's just a bit too much.

1. AS3 needs a clone for display objects

2. Needs getPixel for non-bitmapData objects.

3. Needs something so I can apply individual changes to all members of a class without having to store a static array.

4. Needs to simplify the class structure. Why do I need 3 classes to post a link or load a picture? Why do I need a bitmap class and a bitmapdata class? You're telling me you can't just merge them?

5. CS3 needs to suck less and be more like flashdevelop. Flashdevelop is a wonderful IDE.

6. AS3 needs a variable type-detection function. If this already exists, I'd love it if someone would tell me.

Of course, I can create custom classes to get around some of this stuff, but it's slower, and I really shouldn't have to.

ook. Can someone answer a very simple question, why oh why do I need to learn a lot of complicated crap, just to do something that is far easier to do in AS2 anyway? so I can call myself a "real" programmer? I really don't understand the thinking behind AS3, ok so gives you some performance gains.....and? so what? I've always been a designer/developer and that was good enough for me, I don't want to be a developer/developer just to get the same results I was getting already (although maybe slightly faster). When I come at a problem in Flash, I'm always thinking hmm...can I do this on the timeline? can I i do this in AS? combination of both? and AS2 fits into that way of thinking perfectly, AS3 just doesn't. Because the coding side of things takes so much faffing around that I just can't be bothered.

All adobe have done with AS3 is alienate the designer/developer which was the root base of users that Flash had, to make it more appealing to non Flash developers. That situation needs to be addressed with the next version.

Its not complicated. Just because you're a designer doesn't mean you can't learn programming. All I hear is, I'm a designer so I will never learn to program, I was born with a rare designer disorder that prevents me doing so.

the situation doesn't need to be addressed. You need to learn new concepts, why you ask? because this technology is evolving.

if its too difficult to grasp then just stick with AS2, simple. The whole point of AS3 is to perform better, if you don't care about that ("ok so gives you some performance gains.....and? so what?") then don't even bother using it.

Adobe hasn't alienated anyone, they have kept their software backwards compatible throughout all IDE releases. Its still possible to code in AS1, flash player 6. I still do when creating banners.

I think my avatar needs bigger angrier eyebrows and red flashing eyes

I haven't read all the posts, but I'm going to give my two cents.

I think the IDE is the main issue. They decided to go with a more OOP approach, but they hardly changed their IDE. It makes it rather difficult to program using the new framework. I doubt any programmer even enjoys programming in their IDE. So, although AS3 is a nice scripting language, Flash CS3 was a pretty big disappointment. It added disadvantages for people that Flash has always been directed towards by trying to attract programming attention. I think they really need to focus on creating an IDE that will make the programming environment more intuitive. It's really not a difficult framework to understand, but there is no effort made to help those who are not programmers.

malee, several things, first up in a previous post you said this:
"Does anyone actually know for sure if their objects were "completely gone" from memory in AS2?, if anyone can prove to me that AS2 objects get removed from memory more than AS3 objects do then i'll eat my hat."

Again, go watch the video Incrue posted some posts back and then go eat your hat.


Next up you say things like this:
"Its not complicated. Just because you're a designer doesn't mean you can't learn programming. All I hear is, I'm a designer so I will never learn to program, I was born with a rare designer disorder that prevents me doing so."

This is ignorant. Not everyone has to see things like you or feel like you.
Its not a disorder if a designer or interactive designer doesn´t feel like its the most awesome thing to become an oop coder just to get interactivity going he could achieve before without having to become one before.Its fine you and me and many others are able to code in oop manner, know about classes,inheritance, encapsulation, local variables versus keeping things global/static,data types and what not all but you have to understand that others don´t feel like learning all this and they don´t have to.
Who are we to look down at others as if they just haven´t reached a certain mindset or skill level yet? Maybe those interactive designers partially do way cooler stuff for way longer than some new school flex component based ria mini app maker oop kiddy?
I don´t want to talk either down but yeah,each side has advantages for different things, but yeah a big part of the professional working flash platform content creator community could get interactivity going without having to become an developer/developer (as Boombanguk put it :) )oop guy, they could be designer/developers or similar and you won´t be able to tell them why that shouldn´t be possible anymore, either they should only use older stuff or they should now be restricted to become graphic designers only and better not touch code at all.
If such things are your or adobe´s suggestion then that´s what will cut off more and more sells for the flash platform porducts in the future.
You can´t just throw a few graphic capabilities features to them each second version and say, yeah, that codeside changes, we won´t make em accessible for you, swallow it, either you learn it or you just can´t get anything done in code anymore.

Also, again, performance as argument for forced workflow on AS3/F9 Player export is ridiculous, again, go check out unity demos where you can code in Javascript and get content running and hugely better performance. This is not to pimp unity, its to show that its ridiculous Adobe doesn´t propperly raise the general performance of the player enough in other ways and their only halfway (still laughable) offer is putting all optimisations on codeside and on content developers´ shoulder.
I´d have more understanding for having a workflow like with AS3 forced on one for highend performance requiring situations if then the resulting featureset/performance would be as with unity, but just with what one gets with the flash player its laughable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomsamson

they don´t have to.

---

why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_malee

why?

---

Because they dont have the problems oop was designed to solve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Incrue

Because they dont have the problems oop was designed to solve.

---

But you don't have to write OOP code. You could write OOP code just (almost) as well in AS2.

ok, as soon as you write a line of code you are "programming", you have stopped designing at that point. So what problems does a "programmer" have that cannot be solved using OOP? It was designed to primarily solve problems.

so my question is, if a designer starts to program (thus becoming a programmer) why does he/she need special help? Why do I (someone who does more programming than design) need to learn how to use a language and a designer (who does less programming than design) not need to?

a programming language is a language, you don't half learn a language and tell everyone you can speak it. You continue to learn the language until you can speak it, so you can order those tasty snails at an authentic french restaurant and not get angry when frogs legs come out.

let me ask you, since the release of AS3, has the quality of flash work about the web diminished or heightened?

I'm with malee on this one. AS3 has brought only good things to flash, making it "proper" and OOP is a huge time saver for me, every time I go back to AS2 it slows me down. Just the other day an obscure dive-by-zero bug held me puzzled for hours.

For the IDE, maybe they should bring back the code assistance though, maybe make a few wizards that generate code to help code-unfriendly designers make simple stuff like linking buttons. For anything more advanced, I really can't care for them, stick with AS2 - nothing wrong with it - or get a programmer. I ask an animator to help me out with graphics that's above my skill level, why should they nerf the coding part of flash at our expense? Or what are you suggesting?

this argument is obviously split down the non Flash developers who then came to Flash because of AS3 and the original designer/developers who have always used Flash on the other....now maybe it's just me but I would of thought Adobe would of leaned towards their original user base and made things more geared towards the designer/developer, but this is obviously not what they have done with their last version of Flash. Instead they have gone after new markets and tried to grab all the non flash developers and bring them into the fold as well, and that's all fine and dandy, but they shouldn't of done it at the expense of the original main body of users.

I program with OOP all the time with AS2, I love being able to use classes etc and I understand all that to a certain degree, but I also love being able to do really simple things simply! AS3/Flash 9 just seems to make hard work of very basic tasks, and is very counter intuitive to a designer/developer.

There's nothing wrong with having a sophisticated language built into Flash, the more power it has the better it will be we are all agreed on that. But the way you use that language to get to the power in Flash has to be more basic, so the bulk of Flash users (designer/developers) find it easier to do cool things (in our case games), if that means it makes the Flash player slightly less efficient, is that the end of the world?

I love having the OPTION of having access to the real guts of the player (bytes/bits/pixels), but the basic operations we all want to use (basic setting up of a game, putting stuff on the screen, duplicating things, file operations etc) need to be real easy to setup.

For whatever comes next in Flash, they need to think first and foremost about the designer/developer. There's no point having cool new things in a Flash player if most people (i.e designers/developers) never get to use them. AS3/FP9 has power and is capable of really cool things (I'm thinking Pv3d and box2d here) but how many games are out there that really make use of them? 99% of Flash games are still happy with AS2/FP8. I would love to do a game using those libraries, but I just don't have the time to really get into them. So, lets have cool features, in the player, but lets make them easier to use and mess around with!

Quote:

---

[...]99% of Flash games are still happy with AS2/FP8.

---

Coincidentally, 99% of Flash games suck. This is not necessarily the exact same 99% though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_malee

ok, as soon as you write a line of code you are "programming", you have stopped designing at that point. So what problems does a "programmer" have that cannot be solved using OOP? It was designed to primarily solve problems.

so my question is, if a designer starts to program (thus becoming a programmer) why does he/she need special help? Why do I (someone who does more programming than design) need to learn how to use a language and a designer (who does less programming than design) not need to?

a programming language is a language, you don't half learn a language and tell everyone you can speak it. You continue to learn the language until you can speak it, so you can order those tasty snails at an authentic french restaurant and not get angry when frogs legs come out.

let me ask you, since the release of AS3, has the quality of flash work about the web diminished or heightened?

---

Ha, I just saw this post. Hell where do I start. As soon as you write a line of code you stop designing? what? I wouldn't call myself a hardcore code by a long way but even I know that there are such things as design patterns in programming, structures etc which is very much "designing" but that's not even my main point....I'm a designer........developer........I use .......Flash.....which is capable of what? design.......and development....both aspects work in combination.......so like I said....whatever the issue is I'm trying to do in Flash, my first thougth is hmm...I can create this graphic...maybe animate it a bit on the timeline..maybe add in some code.....etc etc....I don't try to solve all problems on the timeline with tweens because that would be crazy and wasteful when I could also use some code, likewise I don't think ooo I need to solve this issue completely in code when I can do something in 5 seconds with a tween that would take me 5 hours to work in programming. I'm all about the most efficient way to get a job done, I don't care if that means using tweens or code, but usually it means using both.

You seem to think all us "designers" are thick haha......and we need "special" help for us to program?........well put it this way, we were doing fine before AS3/FP9 came along!...and it was US that got Flash to where it is today, not all the non-Flash developers who were off doing something else :)

I think you make a good point with your final comment "let me ask you, since the release of AS3, has the quality of flash work about the web diminished or heightened?" But...the only thing I would say to that is that yes SOME stuff has gotten better.......usually the stuff that impresses the most is the physics/3d stuff.....but like I said in my last post...how much of that is out there? compared to everything else? and from a games developers point view how many games are out there that use that? not many that I know of.....so from taking that into account, is all the extra power been worth alienating designer/developers or at least making their lives harder? I don't think it was.

It's all about balance, with the next version they need to address the balance somewhat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5TonsOfFlax

Coincidentally, 99% of Flash games suck. This is not necessarily the exact same 99% though.

---

Umm I dunno if 99% suck haha........but even if that was true, i don't think it's the fault of the AS2 or FP8. (WARNING pimping on its way)...my earth defence game is all AS2/FP8, came 2nd place in the mochiads/rockstar judged comp, and has had god knows how many plays (probably way over a million)..so I think it's more about the designer/developer then the technology.....AS2/FP8 is pretty powerful I love it :)

No, I didn't mean to imply that it was the fault of the tools used. But I'm of the firm belief that most people are perfectly happy to **** out a half-baked game, throw it up on a site and hope to recieve a cut of some ad revenue. We should not let these people influence the future direction of Flash. In fact, I'm happy AS3 alienated a great many of them. Now, using AS3 doesn't automatically make your products good, but I do think that a higher barrier to entry is fine.

This probably makes me seem elitist. Guilty as charged.

@tomsamson
can you please stop making the unity argument? everyone (else) who's mentioned performance has done so in the context of the flash player. i'm not saying unity isn't the cat's pajamas, but c'mon.

there does seem to be some creepy, evangelical thing when it comes to the rather abstract notion that AS3 is worse; that it's harder to learn- worse for prototyping... These aren't easily quantifiable values. Let alone from a group of people who've spent a small lifetime with the language's predecessors!

i haven't used the authoring tool in a long time, and i hear complaints that CS3 is not intuitive. i don't know if i have some learning impediment, but i remember the experience (mx 2004) as frustrating, bewilderingly backwards and awkward. it does a lot of fun stuff, but it's awkward as ****- always has been.

I have to disagree on the "more powerful language means better games". For example Director, its more powerful then Flash in nearly every way and yet it is pretty much dead. Even the people who do use it, hate it. With Flash it has been quite opposite, everyone enjoyed it. The reason was not allmighty power of Flash plugin or OOP language, but because it was so very easy to get things done.

Or Java, it has been proper language for ages, with classes and stuff. We havent seen it taking over the web.

So what has Flash to offer that other languages cant handle? It used to be easier, simpler and very well combined with artistic stuff like animations. Thats where more powerful and more complex languages failed, they were simply too difficult and it took too long to learn them. Flash with its click-drag-set IDE has been ideal for people who dont want to spend years learning other languages. As we can see, Flash has been success and number of people using it is huge.

Now AS3 is different. It takes same time to learn as Director, Java or C. It doesnt combine too well with IDE-based animations. Its interactions with mouse and keyboard are awkward. And while bringing in several restrictions compared to older version, AS3 still retains all weaknesses like slow and weak plugin. So the question is obvious - why to use AS3 and not something else?

I am pretty sure Adobe will be making better IDE in next few releases while keeping the AS3 mostly intact. With F12 we may finally get back where we were with F8, meaning its again easy to use and understandable for most people. You know, IK in F10, you drag things around and it creates code automatically for you. Its same code F9 has but nobody uses because its too complicated to get it done. Im just not too sure we will have enough people interested to wait 5 years for F12 to arrive and fix the mess.

Seems there is a theme. And there is already movement in the direction it implies. Flex and Flash. Adobe has already started to recognize that there is a difference between how developers want to work (Flex) and how Designers want to work (Flash).

If Adobe is smart they will make the next version of Flash more designer friendly and put more of the OOP developer features into Flex.

As for this designer developer debate, there is a need for both. I prefer the development side, but have a great respect for designers who do things visually that would make me look like a bumbling child if I attempted.

I do not believe that one is "smarter" than the other. They different was of thinking and different skills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5TonsOfFlax

No, I didn't mean to imply that it was the fault of the tools used. But I'm of the firm belief that most people are perfectly happy to **** out a half-baked game, throw it up on a site and hope to recieve a cut of some ad revenue. We should not let these people influence the future direction of Flash. In fact, I'm happy AS3 alienated a great many of them. Now, using AS3 doesn't automatically make your products good, but I do think that a higher barrier to entry is fine.

This probably makes me seem elitist. Guilty as charged.

---

I would agree with you if there were lots of decent quality AS3/F9 games out there, but where are they?...or you are saying that the reason why there are not is because all the non hardcore coders are either too lazy or stupid to use it? haha...of course that's not the reason (although I am lazy, haha)..coming from AS1, AS2 was still a step up because it was all about OOP.and I took it to like a duck to water........it was great, and I could do cool things easily....then AS3 comes along, and the same things I was doing before now were a lot more complex to achieve and that's the main charge against AS3/F9.

The whole IK F10, creating code for you I'm not sure about to be honest, especially if the code that is created is super complex and I can't make head or tail of it.

TonyPa:

Pretty much agree with all you said :)