Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 855EA9DD0 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:28:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 36162 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jan 2012 10:18:07 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 36079 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jan 2012 10:17:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 35647 invoked by uid 99); 13 Jan 2012 10:17:56 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:17:56 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of flexcapacitor@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.175] (HELO mail-tul01m020-f175.google.com) (209.85.214.175) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:17:49 +0000 Received: by obbuo6 with SMTP id uo6so2241759obb.6 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 02:17:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=8874V6bqKY4oXeUASVoJqOdpgAhTW1vrlw/U5Wwc3kA=; b=E/CH7k2pLsQpJ04c4lGEC11XdxOSaCbaXFFPWPof8S/QD0extHaDcFbtLafJqH9BKU n6fnXzUxdbjiKpnNvawgJDFHamMWHKqBVS4jZ2u7lZ/EdJyd9ZnnkAEPPQjHn20eqhgt R5lpzrsC+Ke0FvZFynsaj6GwxdWgoSUkz4s78= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.134.71 with SMTP id pi7mr28232obb.77.1326449848172; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 02:17:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.42.2 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 02:17:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <40BDD28C-413B-48DD-A7FD-19F7A9672E58@gmail.com> <527DC39672C34D4B9071A6DB27565439@KORODESKTOP> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 04:17:28 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Petition: Flash Catalyst must survive From: jude To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f838e41033eb004b6662c85 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --e89a8f838e41033eb004b6662c85 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Geez guys. Why is everyone against design views? I'm all for Flash Catalyst. I'm all for what it was trying to solve. I agree, it wasn't complete but neither is Flash Builder or the Spark Flex SDK. I don't know about you but I'm tired of writing out Path data="M 0 0 L 0 16 L 16 8 L 0 0 Z" to create a simple triangle. You shouldn't have to do that. In Ps and Ai what you see is what you get. It's setup so you can change a property or effect and see the change instantly. It's fast. How much time do you waste by the change property, style or effect, compile (+/- 15s), preview in browser, rinse, repeat process? It's sooooo agonizingly slow. I mean I think most of us come from a design background and designer tools??? Fc had a timeline and effects preview. It let you see the different states and skins. It created the FXG and MXML and import and export of Ps and Ai art. I don't like having to create 5 skins to change the look of a scroll bar button. With Flash Catalyst I didn't have to worry about that. I think that's been an advantage of Flex and Flash over HTML / JS is that there is a design / debugging tool with declarative markup or the promise of one (or there was). In time I think it would have been a kick ass tool. I'm glad they kept a design builder tool in mind for Spark. I know a lot of coders that get so comfortable in coding and doing everything in code including design elements that they forget the benefits of a design tool and design first approach. On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Doug McCune wrote: > The saddest thing to me is how much time and effort went into building an > entirely new (yet still incomplete) component model (Spark) that was built > all around the idea of Catalyst. That's not to say that the Spark > architecture doesn't have good ideas when you remove Catalyst from the > picture, but the amount of time that went into designing it to work with > the Fc tooling was all for naught. I have to believe many decisions would > have been made differently, and a lot of time would have been invested > differently had the Catalyst tooling support not been the priority. > > Personally I'm happy to see Catalyst go, and would have been happier to see > it go long ago. > --e89a8f838e41033eb004b6662c85--