Comments on: Dude, Flex kicks XAML’s ass (or I want some of what Adam Churvis is smoking!)

By: Navajo Joe

Navajo Joe — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:55:53 +0000

MXML sucks @$$, you macromedia fan boys. XAML rocks.

By: Simon

Simon — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:52:35 +0000

I am in the throes of choosing a strategic path for my company as to which flavour of RAIs their e-Learning applications should take.
Being arts post-graduate, re-trained programmer, my money should surely be on Adobe to deliver that “Blue-Sky” application that will actually do the task before you think it e.g. “exit humanity” or on the other hand “This computers really boring, anyone want to go dancing?”.
Given the current ‘a simile’ I can only conjugate with humor in my gambit of “that if”:
Obama wins on 5th November : I choose MXML
McCain wins on 5th November: I choose XAML
Base: both have powerful merits but require certain political, economic and social economies to flourish. And may the best Extended Markup Language win.
Smashing stuff guys, keep up the good work, now I’m off dancing…

By: Gilbert

Gilbert — Fri, 23 May 2008 18:07:37 +0000

I have always found the arguments of what is better amusing. I think and mind you im not some master of all things or some super dev guy. Im just a person who has had the fortune of being able to explore the different worlds of microsoft and adobe. I think a co worker of mine said it best concerning the Adobe/Microsoft approches to things.
Basicly its this.

MS has a very dev-centric method when it comes to what they make. This is great for someone like me who perfers to be a code monkey. The tools and approches they use fit the methods and approches i use in my day to day activity. I absolutly love working with the XAML and Silverlight 2.

Adobe is more designer-centric. This is great for my co worker who is more designer he loves the tools of that Adobe because the fit his needs and are more intuitive for him. He cant stand XAML and Silverlight 2 at all, for him Flash/Flex are the way to go. For me on the other hand i go nuts with the approch of Adobe’s and apps.

Is Microsoft better than Adobe when it comes to tools or vice-versa. Probibly not it all is dependent on your own personal approch and methodoligy. I give both companys a lot of credit, I think they have developed some interesting and useful tools that have allow for some great user experiences.

By: Aral

Aral — Thu, 01 May 2008 07:39:25 +0000

Hi Wally, Alex,

AFAIK, Microsoft can throw the kitchen sink into Silverlight (which they probably will end up doing.) I’m hoping that one day they learn that features++ != usable product.

In the meanwhile, I hope Adobe keeps on providing a solution that is simple to use and fits the needs of web developers.

How you can even state that Microsoft’s solutions are the “mothership of RIAs” confounds me totally. What statistics do you have to back up your claims? Flash/Flex have almost complete ubiquity in this field. If anything, Flash is the mothership of RIAs. You’re comparing a version 1 product to a version 10 platform (and looking very silly doing so.)

By: Aral

Aral — Thu, 01 May 2008 07:36:27 +0000

Hi Lorenzo,

“Polished” and “complete” are, IMHO, not things to strive for in software. If your software is “complete”, it is dead. Only software that is constantly evolving is alive. Thus, I feel that those are the wrong goals to aim for.

Does Adobe have an IDE that is being evolved and developed? Yes. Does it get the job done? Yes. Is it feature-for-feature comparable with Visual Studio? No. Should it be? I hope not.

One of the great things about Flex is how easy it is to work with when compared to the complexity of some Microsoft technologies. I hope that Adobe don’t lose sight of this important value as they evolve Flex and Flex Builder.

Just like we shouldn’t aim to be where Java was ten years ago with ActionScript, we shouldn’t aim to be where Visual Studio is today with Flex Builder.

By: Lorenzo

Lorenzo — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:17:49 +0000

And, does Adobe has a IDE as polished and complete as Visual Studio?

Lorenzo

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:22:05 +0000

Wally is right. Anyone trying to compare Flex/Flash with .NET/XBAP/SL/WPF will undoubtly come to the conclusion that Microsoft’s solution surpasses Adobe by far. Full graphics acceleration, easy databinding, full desktop experience and use of prior desktop development knowledge makes .NET a clear winner over Adobe’s solution.

I believe Adobe is trying to keep developers, not gain new ones. They had to have *something* to show against the mothership of RIA’s (.NET/XBAP/SL/WPF) so they don’t lose all developers in an instant. I have no doubt in the long run (with Vista having .NET 3.0 preinstalled) the penetration of .NET will surpass Flash as well.

Alex

By: Wally

Wally — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:38:11 +0000

What do you say now that SilverLight 2 is going to come out equipped w/ the mighty .Net framework as a from top to bottom web app solution instead of just a flash-wanna-be? Dude, Adobe has little to no measure to counter the M$ juggernaut. They are a good 3-year behind, and I’m just being conservative here. Time to switch to SL2, it’s the right moment.

By: Andy

Andy — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 03:39:19 +0000

I am a web designer and developer. I usually designed in Flash actionscript, but since I started with XAML I have not doubt microsofts apporach is way smarter, and more functional in the market. Flash is really neat, but in regards to code, unlike a lot of you mention, its a mess in comparison to XAML. XAML works a lot more logical for a developer, and yet its clear for the designer as well. Its also a lot more powerful especially with the ease that visual studio brings to the table, and its still easier without visual studio. If you write code manually and you are a programmer, and would like a better workflow, XAML is way beyond flash.

By: Aral

Aral — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:11:25 +0000

Hi Marcelo,

Unfortunately, Flex 2/3 is Flash Player 9 only.