digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Why I don't get Adobe Flex

yanivg.blogspot.com — Mark demoed Flex at FOWA today, building a functional, slick Flickr tag browser in few minutes using the Flex markup and practically zero code. The thing is that the exact same day can be built with just as easily with an environment like ASP.NET, with the output delivered to the client using standard XHTML CSS and JavaScript. So why Flex?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Schuhfan, on 10/12/2007, -27/+5Because it's boring using HTML and Javascript? Maybe
  • yenster, on 10/12/2007, -41/+40The difference is, with Flex your app will run in all the major browsers. With .NET stuff, it may work fine in IE6 but may not in IE7, Firefox, Safari, Opera, et al. As someone who's tried to use Javascript to work the DOM, I can tell you that it's a nightmare trying to get things to work in IE6...even using code samples from Microsoft's own developer Website that supposedly "work" cross-browser.
    • LoungeActx, on 10/12/2007, -20/+7I believe the reason to use Flex is because it is cross-platform. Versus, something that is platform specific. At least that is my understanding...
    • stupidStan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+59that does not make any sense. ASP.net is rendered on the SERVER side, it produces html for the browser to read, so the browser doesn't know whether or not it is reading a php, asp, cf, or simply an html page. You are saying this without understanding your facts. You are correct about javascript, but as for the server side languages you are completely wrong.
    • Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20I develop in .Net all the time. My two browsers I use are IE7 and Firefox. I've run into no issues.

      Even WPF/E which lets you do some really fun stuff works cross browser.
    • bradleycomer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12@Screwy

      I develop in .NET quite a bit myself, but I have noticed some weird rendering that appears fine in MS browsers but has funky effects in FF and Opera. For example, the standard calendar control has an extremely thick border around the Month portion in FF and Opera when using the "Professional" template look, but appears fine in IE6/7.

      While this is obviously very minor, there are some quirks that exist.
    • booozeninja, on 10/12/2007, -35/+2Maybe he doesnt get it because he's a cum guzzling retard.










      .
    • helmsb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9.NET is server side, yes as a previous comment mentioned there are some minor quirks but all of them can be fixed very easily. The only time I have problems with crossbrowser compatibility is when I am doing CSS. I have nothing against FLEX. I have never used it, but .NET is tried and true and is here to stay. Don't bash a product you know nothing about.
    • whisperedlie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5admittedly, creating cross-browser compatible web applications in .NET was severely lacking in *1.1*. While not at all impossible (extending your browsercaps, creating DOM-compatible custom validators, and using derivative server controls to round out any finicky rendering problems not addressed by browsercaps), it was certainly not painless. Fortunately, Microsoft payed a lot of attention to this in 2.0 and have yielded a much, much better product.
    • cesig, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@stupidstan

      Not that I'm trying to argue (as I've never used .NET), but a server-side language can output HTML and CSS that renders correctly in one browser, but not in another. In fact, just about any HTML code written for IE6 will probably need some tweaking to get other browsers to render it correctly as well. This has to do with browser quirks and not the server-side language, but it is still very possible to have this issue.

      With Flex (and the Flash plugin), it's pretty much moot.
    • rickly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There is more to it than this if you take the Apollo framework into account... your XHTML, CSS, and JavaScript will be rendered within a browser (for lack of a better word) that is based on WebKit (of Safari fame). The collective framework is designed to give you incredible control over your tool-set with without having to worry what it will look like... or what will be broken for the poor soul that is still using Netscape 3.61 beta. Yes... they are out there and they continue to eat into the revenue of every company they patronize.
    • locoHost, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Dude, do you even know the difference between server-side programming, client-side programming, and AJAX? ASP.Net (without AJAX tools) is totally server-side and therefore how could it -not- be compatible with some browser? That's like saying server-side PHP is not compatible with some browsers. Or ASP, or JSP, or Perl. It's up to the programmer to render proper Html.

      If you want to compare a MS product to Flex then compare ASP.Net AJAX to Flex. ASP.Net AJAX 1.0 runs absolutely fine in the major browsers. As does Flex I'm sure. Flex is Adobe's AJAX offering.
    • ahsteele, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The problem with Flex is that it requires the Flash plug in. Sure you can create some feature rich apps to run in browsers that support Flash, but what if you want to write the app once and have it run in any browser. That just takes strong knowledge of XHTML, CSS, and JavaScript. The nice thing about ASP.Net, ColdFusion, etc. is that unlike Flex they don't lock you into anything specific on the client.
    • illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ahsteele
      @locoHost

      I think you both seem to be missing that HTML/DOM/CSS/etc. support across different browsers and even different versions of the SAME browser is and has always been the major headache of web designers. So anything that generates those things on the server side is going to have the exact same issues.

      So while ahsteele points out that Flex is dependant on having a Flash plugin (worse, specifically Flash 9 plugin or later), the same is true for ANY fancy AJAXish solution. It doesn't matter how "strong" your "knowledge" is. So yes, when you write your AJAX (or whatever you want to call it) version, you very much have locked yourself into something specific on the client. Worse, now you have to worry about if they change version of Safari, Firefox, IE, or Opera. OTOH, the Flash plugin is one single piece of code for an entire operating system. So what you really have to test once on the OS, rather than once on each browser on each OS.
    • ahsteele, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@illegalcortex

      I totally understand your comment and support of Flex I just don't like the idea of being locked into Adobe's "ubiquitous" Flash Player. I totally agree that cross browser implementation has always been a headache, but is the answer really locking ourselves into one's company product?
    • yenster, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3I'm going to explain something to you so-called "developers" who don't understand one simple fact:

      1. SIMPLE FACT. No matter WHAT you develop in, the code your server spits back to the browser is ALWAYS dependent on the browser's rendering engine for final presentation to the viewer. I don't care if you're developing in .NET, PHP, XHTML, Javascript...whatever. The differences between browser rendering engines is such that even seemingly-brain-dead-simple HTML/CSS attributes like Padding can render differently, completely breaking your UI if you've got a tight one. IE6, for example, can't do the Padding attribute correctly, and handles the Box Model completely differently from Firefox, Opera and Safari. This is not rocket science, but apparently Microsoft couldn't figure out what you're asking for when you tell IE6 to add 3 pixels on all sides of an object; on the Box Model I'll cut them some slack because perhaps they just Think Different. Whatever; if the User can't even see portions of the UI, then that UI is a bust and your Web app fails. Lots of .NET sites just completely render incorrectly on anything other than IE6. The code handling transactions may fire off just fine; small use if you can't see the form field you need because IE interpreted the Z-index incorrectly and it's hidden under another element.

      Flex, on the other hand, being the Fair Haired Child of Flash, renders pretty much the same cross-platform and cross-browser because it all filters through a proprietary plugin that Adobe takes great pains to insure works pretty well everywhere. I've only seen one Flash UI that didn't work (viewed through Firefox on Linux).

      I think there's a whole bunch of .NET developers who need to learn how browsers work and need to get some actual development experience in the real world, which uses several browsers on several platforms.
    • illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ahsteele

      Oh, I can agree with you on that. Unfortunately, I think the opposite side of the argument is stronger. The fact that the Flash Player is closed and controlled by Adobe means that I don't have to worry about *which* Flash Player a user is running. If FP was open source, supposedly the "good thing" would be that people could make their own FP. So there might be a Mozilla FP and a Logitech FP and the Adobe FP, all for Windows (as well as other platforms). We KNOW what happens when multiple people implement the same spec, right? If this situation came about, the entire benefit of using Flash/Flex would evaporate in a quagmire of incompatibilities and player-specific quirks.
    • geoken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1" If FP was open source, supposedly the "good thing" would be that people could make their own FP."

      That already happend. For a short period Macromedia allowed anyone to view the specs, and before you could blink gnash was on the scene. As expected gnash and the official flash player had several rendering differences. Now if you want to see the swf spec you have to go to Adobe's site and agree to a EULA which basically says you're not allowed to make a player.
    • etnu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Flex also has a minimum 150k overhead for each swf it generates if you use mxml (and that's *with* compression). You can't possibly build "fast" applications when your relying on a huge download no matter what you're trying to do.

      I think AS3 is pretty awesome (and I use it actively for anything that needs video playback or socket connections or the like), but flex is kind of pointless and annoying. It's a half-assed effort to make application writing more like web authoring, but there are already tools that do it better; XUL (mozilla) and XAML (microsoft). The only place that flex makes sense right now is on corporate intranets and the like, not the internet, and even then most applications will wind up being mostly pure AS3 with imported mx.controls.* once the developers realize what a pain in the ass it is to "code" in XML.

      In summary:

      - XML markup languages used for structural documents / applications combined with a good scripting language and a good styling language (HTML, XUL) == good
      - AS3 == great
      - Flex == mediocre
    • illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@etnu

      This comment makes me think you've never done much more than glance at Flex. You don't "code" in XML. At least not if you're an experienced developer. The XML is pretty much just used for laying out the interface widgets. It's like the .frx in Visual Basic or the .dfm in Delphi. So it's really just a resource file, not THE language for coding. Just like in those languages, I separate out my GUI design with my actual backend code. Yes, Flex does allow you to put all your ActionScript code inline in the XML if you want to, but then again perl lets you do a lot of things that aren't really a good idea, either. For a working example, go here and right-click and choose view source. You will see how they separate out interface in the XML and ActionScript in the .as files:
      http://examples.adobe.com/flex2/consulting/styleexplorer/Flex2StyleExplorer.html

      You also don't HAVE to use any XML at all. Just like in C++/VB/Delphi/etc. you could create your entire GUI in code. Though that kind of takes the "Rapid" out of "Rapid Application Development"...


      Also, just like the countless CSS and Javascript files referenced in any AJAX app, the browser will cache the SWF after the first load. So no, it's not a minimum of 150k every time you use the web app.
  • SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -8/+71Avoiding a proprietary system like Flex by utilizing a proprietary system like ASP.NET is an oxymoron.
    • emehrkay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10yes flex sounds like a great idea (from what i've heard so far), i am just wondering if there were ever be an open source equivalent
    • emehrkay, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2...but if adobe is anyting like apple, we'll see flex/apollo built into our next flash upgrades
    • ucg1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14@emehrkay

      OpenLaszlo is an open source alternative to Flex. I believe they are even working on having the option of having the output format be standard HTML/CSS/Javascript, though its main use is for Flash interfaces (if I understand correctly). Haven't used it myself, but it sounds pretty cool from what I've read (for reasons other than just being a Flex alternative).
    • CrumbleBeeHaHa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@Sniper:

      Flex is proprietary on the client and server side. ASP.NET is only propietary to the server, and outputs standard HTML/javascript with is non-proprietary for all clients.

      Flex is like a weak version of WPF/E when it comes down to it. Good luck Adobe...
    • ChumpChief, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I don't think "oxymoron" means what you think it means...

      "Avoiding a proprietary system like Flex by utilizing a proprietary system like ASP.NET is moronic." would make more sense.
    • magic6435, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@emehrkay
      'we'll see flex/apollo built into our next flash upgrades'

      ???ok now that one you are going to have to explain. you do know that flex is nothing but flash correct? all you need is flash player 9 and your all set.
    • pkulak, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3At least my users don't have to download ASP to view my webpage.
    • Braxo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ emerkay,

      Flex is free to use. Its just the graphical builder stuff that you need to pay for. I've built flex applications just using the free KDE and xCode on my mac.
    • ahsteele, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@pkulak
      When you understand how ASP works come back to the big kids table.
    • illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ahsteele

      Actually, I read pkulak's statement as one that was SUPPORTING your argument. But maybe that's just me...


      @emehrkay
      "...but if adobe is anyting like apple, we'll see flex/apollo built into our next flash upgrades"

      Flex support was already built into the Flash player for quite some time. Flex2 support was added last August in Flash Player 9. That's the one thing that's made it a lot easier to sell where I work. Flash Player is already a necessity for web browsing, since some totally legit sites things its a good idea to build a simple website in Flash (blech). So the companies already have a plan to keep updated on the latest version of Flash Player. They keep it more current than the browser, that's for sure. If they don't, I just have to point out some security flaw in an older version and they have to cover their ass by updating to the new one.

      Having personally used this in a corporate setting, I can tell you my boss was blown away. With Flex, you get the level of UI design you used to only get with native apps or Java applets. However, it runs fast and works great on differing browser versions.

      The biggest problem I have with Flex is that, even in version 2, the widget library is small. You can do a lot of cool stuff with custom ItemRenderers, but it would be nice to pick from a huge library of off-the-shelf widgets like you get with VB, ActiveX or Delphi components.
    • circuitbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ CrumbleBeeHaHa

      "Flex is proprietary on the client and server side. ASP.NET is only propietary to the server..."

      Flex applications, when compiled, spit out a standard SWF file. So you are right, Flex uses proprietary technology, the Adobe Flash runtime. But guess what...the runtime (Adobe Flash Player) is free! And as Braxo mentions, only the Flex IDE costs money. You can go right now to http://www.adobe.com/products/flex/sdk/, get the Flex SDK and the Adobe Flash Player runtime and build your own Flex applications...for free!

      So, both client and server can build and run Flex applications at no cost. Not the same for ASP.NET...
  • timsco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Try doing this with ASP.NET:
    http://actionscriptarchitect.com/pv3d/Video3D.html

    The guy has some good points. Flash content is often over-used, but there are things that html/js/css just can't do yet.
    • nwoolls, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Um, I could definately be wrong, but it looks to me like what you linked is a clone of one of the more recognized Microsoft demos for WPF:
      http://channel9.msdn.com/showpost.aspx?postid=116327
      Either way, yes, you most definately can do that with ASP.NET (and XAML).
    • kevincannon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Yea, WPF can do that too. But his point is about using Flash over HTML/Javascript/CSS.

      Since he's giving out about Flash being proprietory, WPF doens't solve that problem.
    • geoken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7No one is saying you can't do that with WPF/E, but if you're going to go that route than how can you crticize Flex for using .swf? It's like criticizing the use of quicktime because it's a proprietary format, then offering .wmv as an alternative.
    • david76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There's a very simple explanation of what Flex is.

      Flash for developers.

      You CAN do a lot of things in Flash's ActionScript and tie into XML and all, but Flex is intended for development of applications within Flash.
  • rudy23, on 10/12/2007, -2/+231. Looks great because you get a flash interface
    2. Most browsers support flash
    3. Easy to use and Fast

    Comes in real handy for small widgets such as a stock ticker etc. Not a good idea to build your entire site using flex.
    • jharlequin, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4It's a great idea to build a whole site with Flex. This is if you want a large scale rich media site. Sure if I am trying to put together my design portfolio then Flex is more of a pain in the ass but if I am trying to create a site like digg Flex would work really well.
    • cakestick, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Flash MX made it awfully clear that you do *not* design the entire site with it.
    • jharlequin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Do you know how old Flash MX is? That's like saying you don't use the internet because dial-up is too slow...
    • nuvem, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1
    • larryrobinson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Wrong.

      We deliver software used by 1000's of municipal governments. Front end written in Flex backend in Ruby and Rails. (Our old version was written in .NET.)

      No comparison for the ease of development using Flex and Ruby.

      As for deployment all the sysadmins throughout the country love it. Install Flashplayer 9 and you're off and running. We have yet to run across and odd browser incompatabilities or other odd behavior, something we spent a fair amount of resources on before. Can't tell you what a bitch it is to track down all those types of problems. (Those who know are nodding in agreement.)

      Nowaday I develop on a macbook pro and fire up parallels to check windows and linux flash players to confirm that flex is behaving as expected. It's at the point where I hardly even bother with that more than once a week.

      I don't want to inject myself into this debate as I view most of these arguments as childish and stupid but I felt it was necessary to refute your blanket proclamation.
    • illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Interesting note - many of namespaces for the Flex libraries start with "mx."

      mx.controls.Text
      mx.containers.VBox
      mx.events.DragEvent
      mx.core.UIComponent

      Gee, wonder why that could be...
      (please, don't be stupid enough to answer that)
  • jharlequin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The reason to use Flex is to gain all of the advantages of the flash player and to make that all accessible to developers who are used to building applications in visual studio etc. Flash itself can do all the pretty code things that Flex can do but Flex takes away the timeline which is often very hard for non-flash developers to get a hold on. The other benefit is that people that have used flash before (designers, etc) are going to be of more use as they will understand and be able to work with certain aspects of Flex. A lot of assets for a Flex project can be made in Flash. So though I am not amazingly familiar with Windows Presentation Format I am guessing that it will be a much bigger pain in the ass to do a project utilizing it.
  • weprin, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17ASP.NET is much more mature, with tons of developer resources already available, a huge support community, and is absolutely beautiful to work with (since the .NET 2.0 release). I don't want to hear any derogatory comments from the people who've either never actually developed a full cycle web application in .NET, or those who've only spent 5 minutes with it and can't possibly understand the depth of its power and efficiency in development. I am in my 4th year working with .NET technology and I'm *still* learning new things every single day.
    • Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Same here. I don't have a problem making ASP.Net work cross platform. It has so much already done for you, you spend more time working on the important parts of the app.
    • jharlequin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Your post is very funny. You speak with such strong words for .net and then dismiss anyone who has not done a full application with it... Have you ever done a full project with Flex? If anything Flex and ASP.net should be used in conjunction. They both have strengths that will benefit different projects. No one tool is perfect. Oh and I have developed with ASP.net it's super.
    • weprin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@jharlequin

      I fail to see where my post dismisses Flex or makes any claim that I do not like it.
      But you're right, I've never worked with Flex. Though I might at some point give it at ry.

    • jharlequin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"ASP.NET is much more mature, with tons of developer resources already available, a huge support community, and is absolutely beautiful to work with (since the .NET 2.0 release)."

      I think this is what came off as putting flex down. But I was more commenting on your probable lack of experience with Flex. Let's just be friends and build an application together! Go Team :)
    • jarofclay, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11These two are apples and oranges really:

      Flex:
      1. Designed for creating interfaces (use whatever language on backend, webservices, XML, etc)
      2. Runs on all OSes (requires Flash plugin in browser - 99% saturation)
      3. Will soon run on all OSes desktop (See Apollo project).
      4. IDE runs on Linux, Mac, and Windows

      ASP.net
      1. Designed for entire applications.
      2. Server only runs on Windows
      3. IDE only runs on Windows
    • larryrobinson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Four years later and you still learn new things about .NET everyday. Nothing big and proprietary here folks... move along.
    • basictheory, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@jarofclay
      To be more precise, Flex 2 requires Flash Player 9, which last I saw, (Dec '06) was about 55-65% penetration.
      Though you are correct that the Flash plug-in in general is at 99%.

      http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer/version_penetration.html

      Also, one of the cool things about Flex Builder 2 is that its built on Eclipse... AND the Flex 2 SDK is free.
  • Lindquist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2This article makes me feel like he just wants others to do his research about Flex for him by claiming he doesn't "get it".
  • ElFredo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8Forget Flex, it's a proprietary technology. Use OpenLaszlo instead: it's OSS, has about the same features, and can target both Flash and DHTML.

    http://www.openlaszlo.org/

    An impressive in-browser mail client:
    http://www.laszlomail.com/
    • illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ElFredo

      Have you used both much? When I was researching a new direction for our company to take on web apps (moving from simple HTML/CSS/Javascript to something more application-ish), I evaluated both. I found the difference to be quite stunning. As a developer (not limited by the term "web"), I found Flex to be the hands-down winner.
  • yadayada, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@ emehrkay

    Openlaszlo would be an open-source equivalent. It uses XML and JavaScript as opposed to MXML and ActionScript 3, and compiles to Flash.

    http://www.openlaszlo.org/

    The Flex SDK is free, it's just Flex Builder (Eclipse based IDE) which costs money.

    (Edit - Elfredo got there before me)
    • drzeus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not only is the Flex SDK free, it comes with source code for the framework too.
  • mahavishnu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Web applications have traditionally been developed in one, two or three tiers - (i.e web, application and database servers). We all know what the web server does - serves up static or generated html and the app server is where you will find ASP, ColdFusion, PHP, etc. And of course, the database server is where the database of choice lives.

    FLEX is yet another layer - very different from the traditional approach of embedding both presentation and logic in the same layer - FLEX 2 is used exclusively for the presentation layer which can utilize encapsulated functionality from app server technologies. This is a huge advantage because by separating the presentation from the logic and database access functionality, we have gained far more FLEXibility in how we can build our web based applications. This may not sound like much now but with the advent of browserless web connected technologies like Adobe's Apollo project, the true power of developing MVC style partitioned applications will be much more apparent.
    • radiobabylon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think a couple of things that Flex/OpenLazlo technology lacks in order to be adopted by the mainstream is a way to view source and of course better search engine compatablity.

      In my opinion the ability to view other people's source HTML/CSS/JS is often underrated and can be a main driver for adoption of certain technologies. True, AJAX based apps can't do all that Flash based apps can but there is tremendous momentum behind this development model, a lot of community involvement (eg Prototype, MooFX, Firebug etc) and plenty of resources all over the web.

      Also there is something to be said in having a neatly separated development model that allows your designer to work simultaneously with your developer on the same project. (Eg XML-XSLT-CSS-JS-HTML). I don't think it really matters how you deliver the XML - Java, ASP.net and PHP can all do the job. Choose whatever you're comfartable with and mix and match.
    • Egnaro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@radiobabylon

      Flex does actually have the option to allow anyone to view the source. It's a simple property in the root application tag that turns source viewing on and off. Then you can either provide a link to the source or right click on the application and get the source. The source view is actually quite nice as well, breaking out the application into all the different components and classes for you to view and automatically providing a zip version to download.

      The difference is that the author can decide if he wants people to view the source or not.

    • illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@Egnaro

      Great explanation. Here's an example:

      http://examples.adobe.com/flex2/consulting/styleexplorer/Flex2StyleExplorer.html

      Right-click and choose View Source. It's pretty damn sweet. And it will be a hell of a lot easier to follow than a ton of JavaScript code.

      Now, if the poster had complained that not ALL libraries in Flex are open-source, they'd be right on. For example, most of the flash.* libraries have no source available.
  • lepew, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4flex / apollo will be very important going forward. Adobe is the only company providing an efficient, reliable cross-platform and standards-based development and deployment solution.

    and it's free (AS IN BEER)
  • aparsons, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5So, not only is he advocating ASP.NET, but he's essentially advocating IIS and Windows, since you need both of those platforms to serve ASP.NET. At least Adobe will run in any J2EE regardless of OS. Plus, most companies use proprietary vendors because of support. When you have a PHP problem or Javascript program at 2am, who are you going to call to figure it out? Financially, who is on the line - not PHP.NET! What a jackass.
  • sixpackistan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1as noted by many wise people on this post, FLEX IS YET ANOTHER NEW PROPRIETARY SYSTEM....with yet another new development paradigm. yeah, just what the world needed. your best bet is to avoid it and stick to open source, standards-based platforms and beer.
  • geoken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Still, I don't get it. Why would an architect choose to rely on a proprietary runtime, available only from a single vendor to do stuff that can be done just as easily with standard XHTML, CSS and JavaScript?"

    Because with a proprietary runtime you don't get a bunch of different companies offering their own personal take on how they think content should be rendered.

    Also, why do people always overlook the fact that swf's are vector based.
  • douggmc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Stupid premise for a question. Dugg down as lame.

    Why don't I get Ford vs. Chevy, Chevy cars can be driven too.
    Why don't I get Coke vs. Pepsi, Pepsi tastes sweet and bubbly too.
    Why don't I get VB vs. Delphi, Delphi can make Windows programs easy and fast too.

    It's called alternatives.
    • Opiate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In the commy one everything nation of digg there are no alternatives ... joke but not really..
  • vineetb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ask that to the fortune 500 companies investing into Flex and the Flex developers who charge as high as $300/hour. Flex has its niche and its solving problems which other technologies have not been able to solve.
    • sedwards, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1$300 an hour? Is that a serious statement? I'm working for the wrong people...
  • webcomsystems, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I worked on a J2EE project using FLEX as the front end.

    With FLEX you can develop an application that has "state". No need for Cookies or sessions.
    It's basically a "semi-thick" client but delivered through the browser, and since more than 90% of uses have the flash plugin, compatibility is no problem.

    I'd go as far as to say that FLEX is the spearhead of the new brand of Rich Internet Applications along side technologies like AJAX.
  • toomdad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have played around with OpenLaszlo and was very impressed, especially with the xhtml/js output. My only real issue with using the flex technology is the capability to have automated testing, I have not yet ran across anything that would allow testing ala selenium or even lower like HttpUnit.
  • alamko1999, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I had try flex after i graduated because during univ i was struck with M$ products . I had created a tutorial http://extension.altlimit.com/flexTutorial/flexTutorial.php using free software only, btw i did this on M$.

    What i could say about it is it has a lot of promise its just too young to be used (i guest its been a year). I didnt continue Flex because many company doesnt know it and it doesnt have market for it during the time i was involve in it. Plus another thing i hate about it is that as everyone knows flash based application takes longer to download. But what i like about it is that is XML base, AS3 is much better than AS2, and you can make a single AS script for both Flash and Flex.
  • radiobabylon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think a couple of things that Flex/OpenLazlo technology lacks in order to be adopted by the mainstream is a way to view source and of course better search engine compatablity.

    In my opinion the ability to view other people's source HTML/CSS/JS is often underrated and can be a main driver for adoption of certain technologies. True, AJAX based apps can't do all that Flash based apps can but there is tremendous momentum behind this development model, a lot of community involvement (eg Prototype, MooFX, Firebug etc) and plenty of resources all over the web.

    I agree there is a lot to be said for having a neatly separated development model that allows your designer to work simultaneously with your developer on the same project. (Eg XML-XSLT-CSS-JS-HTML). If this is now possible with Flex 2 then Adobe are definitely moving in the right direction. But then most web designers are competent in HTML and CSS not Flash front end development and they are also used to using whatever development tools they damn well want to, whether it's notepad or Dreamweaver.

    Concerning serverside technologies I don't think it really matters how you deliver the XML - Java, ASP.net and PHP can all do the job. Choose whatever you're comfartable with and mix and match.

    I think it's all about choice and free beer.
  • CaptShmo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've been a flash developer for many years, and although I haven't played around with Flex too much, the demos i've watched and read through have made me feel that it's good for getting certain types of apps off the ground very quickly, but if your clients want anything more than out of the box type functionality, you'd probably be better off doing the thing yourself in flash from scratch. With flex I feel you are limited to (or at least heavily guided towards) using the transitions, animations and types of user interactivity which are predefined by the built-in classes, the end result of which are applications that have the same general feel as a lot of other flex apps. and which lack the rich user experience you can accomplish with a flash app. tailored specifically for your needs.

    play around with some of the samples here and see how they all sorta share the same basic types of content:
    http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flex/?tab:samples=1
  • masterofNone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2the fact that current search engines can't easily access current flex and flash content is a bother. it's a trade off i'm willing to endure for the sake of great user experiences. do i hope they'lll resolve this issue? yep. do i expect them to within a year or two? yep.
  • icexe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3ever wonder with all the talk about "Rich Internet Apps", that it's always the websites with the simplest designs that draw the biggest audiences?
    People don't go to the web to be wowed by fancy animation and customized navigation schemes that they have to spend time figuring out. they go the the web for specific information, they want it fast, and they barely want to think about anything else.
  • phoopee3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's marginally easy to make a new program that can easily replicate an existing methodology - like the fact that Flex can make a Flickr clone. But what can it do that is innovative? What will it make easier - aside from making Flickr clones....
  • webcomsystems, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2icexe,

    It's not just about getting the biggest audience, with RIA's we're talking about Mission Critical corporate applications written in FLEX.

    As for Flash/FLEX not allowing search engine spiders into it, a website is a website, a FLEX application is something different and doesnt neccessarily need the Google spider running through it. Does Google index your install of Outlook?
    We're talking here about Client-style, client-functionality software being available over the internet.
    • Egnaro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Exactly. I don't want a search engine indexing any of the applications I've built in Flex. In fact this is a major bonus to me that Google is kept out of it. Flex is aimed at building applications not websites. I've built a very complex and detailed content administration app for my companies site. The benefits of it over the previous html/forms base solution are massive. Doing it all in Flex has taken what was once a 16 hour job and made it possible to be completed in 4 hours while at the same time adding tonnes of functionality and usability that we could never have added using html/javascript.
    • Bishoco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm going onto a project soon where we'll be evaluating Flex for use. We'll be writing an internal business application, so browser compatibility and search engine support aren't very relevant. We just need to get it done quickly and correctly. So Flex may make a lot of sense for us.
  • HalfGiraffe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Dug down as inaccurate. Read the comments accompanying the original article.
  • scooch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Please before deciding to develop your application with Flex 2...
    It's always mentioned how flash is cross platform, cross browser, installed on 98% of computers... I see it happening in comments above!
    Flash 9 (required for flex 2 and everything they're pitching at the moment) is only installed on 55-65% of all browsers. So just keep that in mind before jumping in the deep end. I think it'll be great in a year or 2 when theres perhaps a 95% install base, but for now its not really an option unless you know exactly what your users have installed.

    Stats as of December 2006, http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer/version_penetration.html
    • Egnaro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is dependent on your audience. I'm actually in the midst of building a small Flex app right now for a site that has a 90% Flash 9 install base according to our stats. Not to mention that most installs of Flash 7 or higher have auto-updating enabled and will update themselves to Flash 9 if they need to.
  • Oebema, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I've been following Flex in the last few years, it definitely has it's charms. But as far as I can see, it's more targeted at the J2EE world than at the .Net world. Maybe that's the reason why SAP decided to start using it (http://www.sap.com/company/press/press.epx?PressID=4519).

    One nice thing it it possible of, is taking loads of the server and putting them on the users side.

    Of course you can do the same stuff with other technologies. But then again, it's all about choice and choosing whats right for your use case.
  • futuretheory, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Simple applications can be done in an Ajax way and a Flex way for similar behavior, the difference is that at some point the AJAX just gets too big and complex to deal with as your application advances. Flex gives you a much better path for complex internet applications, not to mention a real UI library to leverage, along with the power of a flash presentation layer.
  • RevGenetics, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2From Article:
    "And what about search engines and other content-aware tools, which cannot easily access the content delivered by Flex applications? And permalinks, which do not work as naturally with Flex as they do with HTML? How do you bookmark a piece of content in a Flex application on Delicious? And - which surprises will you run into when you hit the browser's Back button?"

    You can keep history and use the back button, and save links, but it is different as you need to program in this ability. My programmer is a pretty good kid, and I admit he is a novice... but he could do it at our small website:

    try these links and they will send you to different parts of the website, even though it is a single flash app:

    http://www.revgenetics.com/index.html?myPage=news
    http://www.revgenetics.com/index.html?myPage=faq
    http://www.revgenetics.com/index.html?myPage=prodInfo

    you can also use the back button, and it looks the same if it is in practically any webbrowser. If a mobile device access it, we simply send them to a pure html site.

    Our problem? Search Engines... we need to do extra HTML for them.

    Thanks
    Anthony
  • bitmanx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't get why we think all the processing power has to be on the server side rather than more on the client side. At least Flex has the right idea of using my desktop computing power. Do people really think that Ajax is really the future to the media driven desires in providing a Rich Interface? If so then the web is going to become just stagnant. At least it's an attempt by Adobe to bring forward some real innovation instead of a open source hack so I hope it succeeds.
  • bendavies, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2so Flex is Java by any other name then?

    Haven't we been through all this before? I thought that the widely held consensus to get out of these proprietary "standards" was open standards such as those published by the W3C? Sure Flash is lovely in theory, but again, hasn't it been widely derided as a development platform? I keep seeing this "installed on 98%" figure banded about for years, but you would still be insane to produce a Flash only website, even though this figure seems to trump even IE's market share!

    I my opinion, Flex represents the bleed-back from web development tools: web development tools and practices being used to develop traditional desktop applications. It appears to me that MS and Adobe are battling to secure desktop developers as web developers, using these tools. But, again and again, hasn't it been made abundantly clear that developing web based or net connected applications a completely different kettle of fish (security being the chief concern). Wouldn't we all be better off if developer learnt about the intricacies of developing internet scale applications rather than giving them lovely pretty frameworks that output lovely pretty interfaces?

    You want pretty vector interfaces? Get on the backs of the browser developers to get SVG in place. Then you can knock yourself out and get this pretty interface crap and realise that building an entire interface in SVG would suck just as much as a an entire Flash based site would.
    • geoken, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Why does an entire flash based site suck? (apart from any search engine optimization concerns)
    • bendavies, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Because its not a web site
    • magic6435, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@geoken

      Why didn't ya know thats what all the designers and developers say who took a look at flash 7 years ago said they didn't like it and moved on. they have no idea of everything that can be done in flash now but still talk about it as if they have been developing it for years..... same thing with coldFusion.
    • magic6435, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@bendavies

      tell that to http://fotologue.jp/
    • Egnaro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Here are two lists of Flash sites that definitely don't suck:
      http://awards.fitc.ca/main/finalists/
      http://www.flashforwardconference.com/past_winners
    • bendavies, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@magic6435

      I actually WAS a Flash developer. There is one fundamental flaw with the "Flash is a platform" argument: it isn't. Flash is a plug-in which is served within a web-page. As it is a plug-in, it is not and never will be part of the page that serves it. Apollo appears to be an effort by Adobe to break out of this and launch Flash/Flex as a bona fide platform. However, it will be competing against the web as a platform.

      Look, don't get me wrong, I do have a massive soft spot for Flash: I literally wet my pants when Macromedia gave XMLSocket support to Flash. But it slowly dawned on me that we've been here before: this is Java all over again, only it's JavaScript 2.0. Flash and Java sat on top of the Web.

      You want to build Flex apps, go for it. Just don't call yourself a web developer.
    • engwar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wouldn't say that Flash sites suck necessarily but I usually sigh when I get to one because in general...

      * Flash websites are usually eye-candy sites that don't seem to have a lot of actual information
      * Flash websites usually don't change over time so once you've seen a Flash site why do you need to see it again?
      * A flash site that has a lot of text in a scrolling 'frame' is difficult/impossible to print

      They don't have to be this way. Maybe what people are saying is that poorly-designed and poorly thought out Flash sites suck. The problem is that's most of them.

    • illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@bendavies

      "Just don't call yourself a web developer"

      Why anyone would want to limit themselves by putting on that three letter qualifier is beyond me...
    • geoken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"As it is a plug-in, it is not and never will be part of the page that serves it."

      Can you offer some practical examples of how this becomes a problem? I think the above is actually a good thing. It means the page, and the browser that renders it don't affect the swf's ability to look the same in every browser.
    • bendavies, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@geoken

      Your absolutely right: because the content of the plug-in is separate from the page content, you can safely separate the rendering of the plug-in content from the different "interpretations" the browsers make of the page content. As a developer of of content for a plug-in, this is great thing.

      However, this all falls down when your trying to present your content in a format that is designed to be reinterpreted for different devices. For example, the layout of a HTML page can be presented as a visual page, can be read to you via a screen reader if your have visual disabilities, it can be "felt" via a braille reader, displayed on a PDA or mobile phone screen, it can even be interpreted semantically by a search engines spider, etc; Rigidity in the presentation of content is something all web designers should be striving away from.

      When you look at something like Flex, what your essentially seeing is the reinvention of the web browser, albeit based on a differing, propriety format. As a web developer attempting to serve your clients content to as many user-agents as possible, flash is just as silly as serving your content entirely though an ActiveX control.
    • illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@bendavies

      While I agree with you on some parts, I think you have to keep this in the context of what kind of applications are being built. Flex is being positioned as a competitor to Java Applets and AJAX web pages. None of those other two are going to work very well with a braille reader or on different formats like a PDA unless the designer has put thought into that up front. It's really no different with Flex. Though I will say with some of the automatic tiling and resizing in Flex, it's a lot easier to build a web app that works on a skinny screen than it is with AJAX. Hell, even most non-AJAX websites look like crap on PDA/mobile phone screens without the site developer keeping it in mind.

      Also, the reality of a business or even and individual is that they want to make their content available for the largest number of PEOPLE, not the largest number of USER-AGENTS. That may not be fair, but it is reality. In my opinion, you're better off making the whizbang app in Flex or AJAX, and then making a separate plain-HTML app for people with disabilities. Otherwise, you'll wind up with a giant hairball of code.
  • DesignHonky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1How this got Digged is ridiculous. This is just one developer getting cranky about another viable technology for developers (which is specifically not aimed at .NET developers) to use. Flex is just easy and great for rapid application development that leverages Adobe's existing technologies. No one at Adobe is saying that this is supposed to replace anything or be better than anything thats out there already. I don't see anyone making something like picnik.com with .NET.
  • gr00vy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Flex is to a hand rolled site, as a printer driver is to hand rolled postscript.

    You can do more with a hand rolled site. You can be clever, be more precise, and even do stuff no-one has even seen before. You can create reuse methodologies, have your code be as elegant or obscure as you like.

    But, it will be easier to create a site using flex as the output. I won't have to *know* the underlying technology and be able to focus on one thing and let Flex do the "tech" stuff.

    Some write thier own, some use LaTex, some use inDesign, some use Elements, some use the Gimp. Same kind of thing.
  • stelt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Open video formats, SVG for animations and (X)HTML+CSS for docs
    Flash is an inherently flawed format, no matter how good the tools.
    • illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@stelt

      The browser is an inherently flawed tool for running applications (understandably). Flash is a horrible way to do applications in a browser. Flash+Flex2, however, is an excellent one.
  • kettle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I thought this was about the Fast Lexical Analyzer generator.

    http://www.gnu.org/software/flex/manual/html_mono/flex.html

    Who cares about Adobe?
  • illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think part of the problem with a lot of these comments is not recognizing their are two fuzzy clouds on web stuff. There's the "informational website" and there is the "web-based application." Three if you count "web-based art project." Building an entire informational website in Flash (with or without Flex) is generally a terrible thing. It's just not necessary and sacrifices a lot of the strong suites of browsers. However, building a full-fledged application using HTML/CSS/JavaScript can be just as bad. GUI frameworks for applications are far richer than anything we've seen hacked into a browser.

    There are a lot of in-betweens, where you have a mostly informational site with a couple of fancy widgets on it. Those are more debatable. In general, for those I would favor a non-Flash/Flex approach.
  • justo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i think people are neglecting the fact that a flex/flash application use a fully event driven mvc (model-view-controller) pattern, as apposed to the browser mvc2 request/response, where events are only passed upon request.

    true, ajax allows for some of this, but not as elegantly as flex. along with declaratively specifying a user interface in xml, one can declaratively specify data sources (models) that are event driven, and whose callbacks can automatically update any of the view based components.

    it's really slick -- i'm looking forward to openlazlo egging on flex so that the developers' lives are better!
  • ahsteele, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@illegalcortex
    Now that I reread his comment I am turning red for being an ass.

    @pkulak
    I apologize for my comment.
    • illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ahsteele

      No worries. We've all done it. I have no doubts I will make the same mistake several times TODAY.

      FYI, your reply doesn't appear to be in the same branch as the original comments. We've all made that mistake too. :)
    • ahsteele, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@illegalcortex

      I wish during diggs comment editing window they gave you the option to just remove your comment. Unfortunately, they don't and I realized my error too late. :(
  • Soulhuntre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Flex is cool... but I see no reason to make a large investment in it when .NET (which is great for all levels of work from stand alone apps to web services) hooks so nicely into WPF (for the desktop) and WPF/E (for cross browser rich clients).

    http://thewpfblog.com/
    • talves, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Because, Silverlight is not operating system independent! (And I love Microsoft solutions). We cannot igonore MAC-OS and Linux any longer. They are here to stay also.
  • bendavies, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Sorry, wrong thread. Please digg down
  • tonejac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The optimum solution is to do ASP.NET back-end and build the client side in regular Actionscript-based Flash outside of the locked down Flex environment. This way you get the both of best worlds. All your server-side logic and XML transactions in .NET and have the nice cross-browser/cross-platform client side functionality running Flash.

    The one big drawback of Flex from a client-side developer perspective is that it is difficult to customize the UI. You lose a lot of "flex"-ibility (bad pun) in controlling the user experience of your application. This is the most critical issue in considering Flex.
    • illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@tonejac

      Please explain what you mean in your "one big drawback" statement. As someone who has developed browser apps and desktop apps in a variety of different languages and IDEs, I really don't see it.
  • KeatonTech, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The thing about Flex is it's easy ... and pretty.
  • sfraider24, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great story! Despite some of the limitations discussed, Adobe Flex is great for the way it integrates with other Adobe software technologies if nothing else. Thanks!

    -SF
    http://www.wasatchsoftware.com/adobe.htm
  • vprasanna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Dekoh www.dekoh.com is the Java based RIA platform. Take a look at how Dekoh compares with Apollo on Dekoh blog http://www.dekoh.com/blog/news/entry/desktop_ria_comparison_dekoh_verses1
  • craigsblog, on 03/04/2008, -0/+0I agree that Adobe Flex is easy and simple to integrate. I use a lot of Adobe platforms and find that it is a nice complementing package. The Apollo server platform is very promising, and I like how this package is rounded out. - Craig R., http://www.craigs-blog.com, http://www.capatrex.com, http://www.capatrex.net, http://www.yournewprofile.com, http://www.dietpillreviewsforyou.com, http://www.extenze-compared-to-capatrex.com, http://www.orexis-compared-to-capatrex.com
  • henryjohnson, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0Adobe Flex is a great platform. I'm hoping they release an update for it shortly.

    http://www.vicerex-compared-to-capatrex.com
    http://www.capatrex.org
    http://www.enzyte-compared-to-capatrex.com
    http://www.vimax-compared-to-capatrex.com
  • alexnum1, 6 hr 53 min ago, -0/+0Now wait a minute, this conversation about Adobe flex has spiraled out of control. Come on now!

    -Alex

    extenze http://www.extenzedoesntwork.com extenze review
    enzyte http://www.enzytedoesntwork.com enzyte review
    http://www.pills-i-tried.com
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.