FAME: Why I switched (Part Six: What's Missing and Should Macromedia Care?)
Part One: Introduction
Part Two: Eclipse
Part Three: ASDT
Part Four: MTASC
Part Five: Flashout
Alright, let's be honest. FAME is not a perfect solution.
Let's look at all the pieces and see where I have some difficulties.
Eclipse: OK, I really don't think that I have any issues here. It seems to be solid enough, although I've heard tale of crashing problems with some people. The price for Eclipse is just about right, though. I mean, seriously; you get a ton of features, a ton of add-ons and all of it for free. Thank you very much!
Now, one item I would like to mention in relation to Eclipse are the MyEclipse add-ins. Want to add Struts or Hibernate support? Want to view your database or make SQL calls? Want to start, stop and view application server output? All inside Eclipse? Take a long hard look at MyEclipse and imagine how much time you'll save. MyEclipse is sold at the yearly subscription price of $29.95. You make the call.
Actionscript Development Tool (ASDT): What's missing in ASDT is true integration with MTASC, better handling of color coding and code hinting, and easier set-up. When an .as file fails to compile, I want the line(s) that fail to highlight. I want a console window to list the errors on a line by line basis. The color coding and code hinting are very pre-version 1 which surprises no one due to ASDT's version number of 0.0.7. This is all really easy for me to say, of course; I can't even successfully subscribe to the ASDT listserv.
Motion Twin Actionscript Compiler (MTASC): As a command line application, MTASC has come a very long way. I think that one of the things that the MTASC team could use is something that they probably don't want to deal with (face it, they are working hard producing revision after revision). What they need is a new set of components to replace the ones that Macromedia has provided to us. This could assist developers from feeling frustrated being forced to use Macromedia's young-but-already-old mish-mash of a component architecture (Not a complaint! It's the only architecture we have!) and perhaps give us smaller, more easily skinned and styled components. There are several efforts underway, but I fear mentioning them as it seems that blogging about new components that have not been created tends to drive developers crazy.
Flashout: I think that Flashout needs to go back to the drawing board from a user experience perspective. Should there be a compile and refresh button inside the document pane or on the tool bar? Should there be a Flashout Logs tab or should the output go to another window, one that the developer can see while they interact with the SWF?
Now on to the more difficult question: Should Macromedia and Adobe Systems care?
I have almost completely given up on my tried-and-true seventh version of a professionally developed, tested and supported IDE from a company I deeply respect to use four open source tools, two of which are pre-version 1. Should they care?
I feel that using FAME is making me more efficient and more focused.
I feel that I have a more intelligent workflow with FAME.
But, I also understand that I am not the typical Flash developer. I am extremely advanced compared to most owners of a Flash MX 2004 license. I don't want to use the timeline. The Flash IDE experience has actually slowed me down. And although I know I am not alone out there, is the niche I am representative of large enough to make a larger corporation like Adobe Systems take notice?
Is Macromedia's revelation that version 8 of Flash is going to be "creatively oriented" mean that they have given up on the coders? I doubt it. But the truest test for everyone will come when Flash 8 is released. If you asked me today whether I was planning on purchasing the next version of Studio MX, for the first time since Dreamweaver was released, I would have to say "I don't think so". And I fear that I would not be alone.
Next: Addendum
Comments (9) | 
Print | 
Send |
del.icio.us
| 
Digg It!
| 
Linking Blogs3759 Views
Comments
Because FAMES forces spreading of whole Flash technology over the developers (and especially Open Source developers) community.
Bever minf we use IDE from Macromedia or Eclipse: we produce SWF ;-)
Are there any online examples available for us to see?
Of course there are some exceptions.(SEPY, and what else?)
The solution is about building a SWF in a way that better suits developers.
FAME, at the very least, is attempting to help people that need to write AS2-intensive RIAs. Another positive to come from a solution like this is to hopefully make MM/Adobe aware of the needs of developers and provide some possible solutions/suggestions.
It's a pretty good way to make the MM people aware of the deficiencies of the Flash IDE: get a number of top developers to constantly mention how they use an alternative for developing their RIAs. A lot of people read these blogs. Even if you don't like the FAME approach, you are now aware of it, right?
One of the advantages to using this different approach is in team development and source control. #include is only so good. In some cases there is no need for a developer to have to touch the Flash timeline, so why force them to use it?
You're right that FAME is probably not right for you, or me, in most cases. However, that doesn't mean you need to bash it. I don't think the intent is to replace Flash. Someone may correct my analogy here, but I view FAME like the poor man's Flex.
I just can't wait for the plugins to mature enough.
MM should be smart about this and sponsor the developpement.
They have a tough fight ahead of them to try and keep good RIA market shares. Flex is a good step, but it's not for everyone. So if they want SWF to prevail, they better listen to the developers.
Drop the Flash pro version altogether (A total failure). Let the Flash IDE be a designer's tool, just like at the beginning and release components separately.
As for the statement "Nobody is going to be able to mimic the FP byte code good enough without MM/Adobe cooperation," the swf format is and has always been open. There are many tools which not only mimic the bytecode that the MM compiler produces, but several even surpass it in terms of efficiency and compactness.
Convert Audio Files MP3, WAV, WMA, OGG from One Format to Another Directly.
homepage: http://www.audio-converter.com