I just got started using Adobe Flex SDK. I was very excited because it's the first time I've found a good, free way to create Flash applications. But then I noticed something: Flex doesn't seem to be much about making animations or designs. It seems more like an application to build forms and menus and the like... which I can already do in (D)HTML.
What features does Flex have that make it better than HTML in some cases?
Also, are there any techniques/software programs that would allow me to add the flash/design components that I mentioned earlier?
Thanks!
Flex, like Silverlight, is marketed for the creation of something called RIA = rich internet application. The idea being that (D)HTML isn't really well-suited to create large-scale, well-responding applications on the web. I'm not sure whether this is really (still) true but historically, it fits.
Flex and Silverlight attempt to correct this by providing two things: a different, extensible technology along with a large library and an adapted toolset for the creation of applications. The disadvantage in both cases is the dependency from further (non-free, non-standard) components. The advantage is a potentially much more productive workflow and better performance.
Flex has a cohesive component model, and the basic building blocks were designed to support applications. HTML, on the other hand was designed for displaying text, and the DOM is a sorry excuse for a component model -- and it was most definitely not designed with applications in mind.
There is a plethora of JavaScript libraries that try to implement a workable platform on top of the DOM, and to even out the differences between browsers. While these work fine in many situations most of them don't come near the richness of the Flex component model, or even the more basic Flash API:s.
However impressing libraries like Dojo, YUI and jQuery are, they are limited by the platform, and it is limited indeed. Flex has all the benefits of the Flash Player platform, like vector graphics, remote objects, video support, cross-domain loading, sockets, font embedding, etc. but also a very good component model, data binding and skinning capabilities, to name but a few. If you're writing rich internet applications Flex is as rich as it gets.
Flex is a layer on top of Flash, and was designed from the ground up for building applications. As such it has very powerful capabilities when it comes to interface construction and data manipulation. If you are interested in movies and animation sticking with Flash is more appropriate.
The advantages of Flex over DHTML (AJAX) include:
- Faster prototyping
- Better cross-browser support
- Better support for data management
- More "serious"
Disadvantages include:
- Stuck with a single vendor
- Requires the Flash plugin
You can do audio and video in Flex/Flash vs DHTML.
Some more details and comparisons are in this The Top 10 Things You Should Know About Flex article.
If you're interested in leveraging the graphics potential of Flex, why not go check out Degrafa which is an open source graphing and general graphics api. It's pretty cool, very well documented, and quote - "Adobe has asked if the Degrafa team would consider helping directly contribute to the Flex Graphics open source effort." - which they are!
It's not just all about charts and graphs.
Just a quick clarification - to be clear, Flex is built on top of Flash. What that means is that anything you can do in Flash, you can do in Flex when it comes to programming. Flex Builder does not come with any tools that let you make animations with timelines or vector art or anything like that, but all of those elements are still usable provided you have the tools to make them elsewhere.
Flex is really about bridging Actionscript 3 as a language and Flash as a runtime into an environment where application programmers can feel truly comfortable with it.
As stated above, "Better cross-browser support." That's probably the biggest factor right now for me.
A few more...
It's a lot easier to get "pixel perfect" designs in place.
It's really easy to integrate Flash content into Flex. Which makes it easier to work with designers.
Actionscript is better than Javascript (go ahead and flame me!)
There aren't any really good alternatives to buying the Flash product for making timeline based animations.
The bad sides:
Sometimes, html is just plain easier / more powerful
Make sure to pick the right tool for the right job. Sometimes DHTML, sometimes Flex, sometimes Flash, and many times a combination of those.
What you're talking about is Flash versus Javascript. Flex is Flash, DHTML is Javascript.
Flex allows for rapid prototyping, an alternate IDE for building Flash .swf s, and fits nicely into Air - Javascript only runs in browsers, includes less animation support by default (although there are plenty of well-established libraries that provide that functionality) and doesn't require a plugin to work.
Also with Flex you don't have to deal with JSON, XMLHttpRequest, compatibility issues and the likes... Everything works like magic.
Unless you need a lot of animations, HTML will feel more lightweight than Flex.
No "loading" screen.
On OS X performance of Flex is abysmal. Even DHTML animations are faster! (see GUIMark).
HTML has wider compatibility than Flex. It may not be as easy as writing for single implementation from single vendor, but OTOH you're not limited to that single implementation:
No problems with iPhone or 64-bit Linux.
With graceful degradation basic functionality might even be accessible from Lynx or BlackBerry browser.
HTML is better integrated with the browser and OS:
Form elements can have native look'n'feel.
Text has preferred type of anti-aliasing, no problems with ClearType.
Keyboard shortcuts, context menus and text selection work as expected.
Browser extensions can improve DHTML apps, but Flex is impenetrable.
Accessibility tools have better support for HTML.
Related
One common hebavior I observed in my slow Internet connection is that most sites on the Web embedding Flash Video, their player is always written in Flex. I can tell by the extremely long loading scroll bar that Flex defaultly provides. From my experience Flash loads faster, Why do people stop writing stuff in Flash anymore?
Are there any fast loading yet rich feature Flash video players>
My experience is that the components provided by default in the Flex framework are more stable than the ones provided in the Flash IDE. So I'd prefer to use the Flex components simply because it means less time debugging problems in the actual component code. It is however true that players based on the Flex framework tend to be heavier in terms of download size. But since video is bandwidth heavy and people who watch video over the net tend to have good bandwidth these days, I guess the conclusions most developers come to is that the extra download size is an acceptable tradeoff for less time spent in coding boilerplate.
Personally, if the requirements state that the player has to load fast and be light weight then I always roll my own in pure AS3 and just implement exactly as much as is needed. But if there is no such requirement, then I'll use the Flex-components as a base and do customization from there.
As for the second part of your question, sorry can't think of any open source fast loading feature rich flash video players right now.
Flex produces a flash movie (swf), so the end result is still flash.
As for the reason behind it, not everybody has or wants Adobe Flash (Studio) or any of the other timeline based studios.
Flex enables anybody to create a flash based application or widget using XML and the free Flex SDK.
There may also aesthetic reasons such as standardised controls.
Try Flowplayer, JW FLV Media Player and the last contender, but not the least from Adobe - Strobe Media Playback http://www.osmf.org/strobe_mediaplayback.html
From my experience Flash loads faster, Why do people stop writing stuff in Flash anymore?
When done correctly, there's no difference in how they work - in fact, I'd argue that stuff done in Flex (specifically, using the Flex SDK) give you more freedom to control how loading is done.
But to answer the question, people stopped using Flash just because there's much better stuff out there. Flex Builder, FlashDevelop, FDT - they're all much better tools for any serious coding and debugging. I used to love the IDE, but now I can't fathom how would anyone do anything serious on it, even when using external code editors.
Flash still works when you need vectors, or to create a library with some embeddable assets, but that's pretty much all it's useful for nowadays.
I am a flex developer, see flex is somewhere flash, here flex has two frames, preloader stage(first frame) and creationComplete stage(second frame), the same frame concept as flash has, but flash has more than two frames and layer concept is also there
Major differneces comnes in the ease of using the components in flex, in flash, altho flash is one of powerful tools that has changes the web,
but flex gives the freedom, i m using flex, so i know that i can give more time on business login development, rather than concentrating on design aspects,
but it's also true, i have to see the design aspects as well in flex,
so happy flexing
I know similar questions have been closed for it being "impossible to answer objectively", but stick with me here.
I built a prototype in Adobe Flex, they (customers) liked it. Everything was fine until they later told me that iPads / iOS needs to be supported too.
I checked out Adobe's Packager for iPhone. We're evaluating that and we will know if it works out in a couple of days. (We need to get through Apple's red tape and certificates raj so this angle is delayed by a few days!)
There is a growing voice for using HTML5/Canvas as a technology platform itself. And despite being quite proficient in Flex, I think this makes sense.
I'm in need of a HTML5 library that can:
Render "widgets" i.e. containers with forms and components (this should be easy and possible using POHJC - Plain old HTML, JavaScript and CSS ;-) )
Provide a Tree like control for laying out some data
Provide a Canvas where data structures can be represented as basic shapes
Provide drag and drop capabilities between Trees, Buttons and Canvas
Provide some sort of Tab Navigator container (I guess JQuery works here)
Interact with back-end services (JSON/XML calls will be okay, but mapping directly with back-end entities will be awesome!)
Renders on latest versions of major browsers, Android OS and iOS (WebKit for mobile?)
Am I asking for too much?
I'm ready to give JQuery & JQuery UI a try.
I looked at Sencha / ExtJS but it seems we need to maintain two code bases one for normal browsers and the other for mobiles (is that correct?)
Are there any other JS libraries worth trying out?
My concerns areas are
Single code base, I don't want to suggest to them that multiple code bases for the client need to be maintained. That's a last resort option and would lead to complete ruling out of HTML5 with Flash apps and native apps being developed.
Canvas capabilities - I don't want to work with raw canvas and shape tags. This too is a last resort option. Is there any abstraction available?
Integration with back-end services, obviously I need some capability here!
Help me out. Communitywikify this if required.
Thanks,
Sri
How about trying Vaadin?
http://vaadin.com/comparison
I do construe its irrelevant to your question, but still this framework can help in great deal. I still use Flex and PHP as main base for many application, but actually fell in love with Vaadin and started using it for my new projects.
Grant Skinner the flash guru is working on a html5 libary. It has some features you requested. It is still in development.
The new Canvas element in HTML5 is powerful, but it can be difficult to work with. It has no internal concept of discrete display elements, so you are required to manage updates manually. The Easel Javascript library provides a full, hierarchical display list, a core interaction model, and helper classes to make working with Canvas much easier.
The libary is called easeljs, you can find it here : http://easeljs.com/
For the normal html and css manipulations without html canvas JQuery is very easy to learn.
I have used Flex for about a year before deciding that I would rather develop Actionscript projects.
At the time, it seemed that the framework was too heavy for the kind of work I was dealing with, mainly small web applications , personal sites, portfolios this sort of thing. I also thought that Flex was like a odd hybrid , something targeting seasoned developers but at the same time , adding some function wizards that seemed to target beginners. It seemed overly complexed in some areas and way too basic in others.
On the other hand, the IDE was great , definitely no comparison with Flash CS IDE , so for me it made sense to stick to AS3 projects and use Flex , now FlashBuilder to write my code.
( I need to point out that I'm not a Flash designer, so working with Flash CS was never an option. )
It's been a while since I had a look at the Flex framework and I'm wondering about other Flex/Flash developers position on this issue.
Would you only consider Flex for enterprise level projects? What are the advantages of using one over the other? If you were a Flash developer and moved to Flex, what were your motivations? If you're creating both Flex & Actionscript projects , what are your choice criteria?
Edit:
Although I have received a great answer, I would have been interested to hear from Flex's users, what's your main practical motivation ( as opposed to philosophical :) ) for using Flex over pure Actionscript projects?
Preamble: my experience is primarily with AS3 projects built using a combination of the Flash IDE (FIDE) and Flash Builder 4 (FB4).
I generally prefer pure AS3 (PAS3) projects over Flex projects for the following reasons:
Size - Flex projects have a much larger minimum size than PAS3 projects. Not suitable for lightweight applications.
Performance - Flash is not known for its performance, and the layout computations required by a complex Flex application will hammer the end-user's machine. To them, things just end-up feeling slow, non-responsive, or "gunky". Unfortunately, this means that the applications where Flex might be most attractive (i.e. a very complex, adaptable, UI) are the exact places where it stumbles. In the end, you end up writing all this bizarre performance-enhancing optimization code that takes away most of the time you gained from using the built-in layout system.
Metaphor and Appearance - Flex aims to allow developers to provide end-users with a mature, flexible UI that has the same widgets and widget behaviors that they are used to from native applications. However, due to the performance problems echoed above, the UI never feels quite as nice or responsive as a native app. In addition, it's missing all of the OS-specific peculiarities that end-users are used to and will expect. I don't really understand the motivation to try to emulate native app development or behavior - you're never going to win that fight. Best to make something that stands by itself, which is what most native web applications are doing.
Flexibility - Dovetailing into the previous argument, Flash's main advantage is its ability to do things that traditional UI widget libraries can't do (at least not very easily). You can make some really, really novel UIs in Flash that just aren't practical to do in native apps without mucking about in OpenGL. Using Flex makes creating novel UI hard again (but it does make creating standard UI much easier, even if it is, in my opinion, sub-standard UI).
I'm curious if anyone has some good examples of Flex being used in any popular, public websites. Grooveshark is the only one that I know about (which is quite nice, but suffers from many of the problems I've outlined, especially on OS X where Flash performance is still poor).
However - it's a tradeoff. Always remember that your time is valuable. Your users might accept a slightly clunky, slightly confusing interface if it lets them do really cool things and that would mean that you could release it now as opposed to later. This brings is to the major downsides of PAS3 development:
Effort vs. Reward - You have to program all of your own UI. All of it. This can lead to some really, really bloated code where you have to define tons of event listeners for every button you want to create. I don't know how many times I've written various kinds of layout code specific to what I was working on. You can try to write your own abstract classes for these (which I have done), but at some point you're just going to end up re-implementing the Flex framework. Hardly worth your time.
Development - You can either use just Flash Builder 4, in which case you have to construct every graphical asset by hand in code (which takes forever), or you use the FIDE, in which case you can make lovely artwork but you're stuck with a stone-age code IDE and it takes forrrrrreeeeeeevvvvver to compile anything. Currently I use a hybrid setup where art generated in the FIDE is automatically imported into my FB4 project, but even that is not a perfect solution. They really need to be integrated better.
Another set of things to keep in mind: things that Flash sucks at.
Flash sucks at text. Do not try to re-implement a web browser inside Flash. Flash is actually quite good at displayed relatively small amounts of text that is unselectable (and, through the use of embedded fonts, is always pixel-perfect), but don't try to create large, expansive text documents inside your Flash project. First, performance will be terrible, and second, users will expect the text to behave the same way all other large text fields do in their native applications (most specifically, their web browser). Selecting text in Flash doesn't feel right because it doesn't feel how your OS does it.
Flash doesn't play nice with mouse and keyboard input - it constantly fights with the enclosing browser for focus. If your system needs either of those things, users need to click on it first. Don't fall into a trap where people will get confused because their inputs are going to the wrong place.
Flash is a performance hog - we've all heard this one, and it's not nearly as much of a problem as people like to think, but it does mean that you'll have to put a lot of thought into the performance of your system. Your UI should run at a stable 60FPS when being used and should not use much if any CPU when the user is not interacting with it. If your FPS dips below 60, then your UI will feel slow and gunky compared to native or HTML5 UI. Also make sure to watch for memory leaks.
In the end: user your head. Both approaches are just tools in your arsenal.
this is not a technical question, well maybe potentially, but since this is such aresponsive messageboard I thought I would get some good responses here.
I am due to create a pretty robust website coming up soon that has to be creative but also incorporates a lot of data. My perspective, as a newcomer to flex, is that it is better for applications than it is for more abstract websites. Things are harder to skin in flex, you can have smoother animations in flash, etc. These are just my perceptions.
Question is, can you do the same creative material in flex that you can do in flash, or if you can is it worth the extra time? Basicially trying to figure out if I should do this project in all flash or flex and flash, because I know the design, transitions and look of the site will be fairly organic.
You can do a lot of the same creative material in Flex that you can do with Flash. In some cases, especially if you can handle coding easily, it's even easier, because you can add effects without having to tweak a timeline. You can use the graphics class to draw the kind of simple shapes Flash lets you work with and you can style them.
You can also add any bitmap or vector images you want to Flex and use them however you want, even as background-images for, say, a Canvas. I create graphics symbols in Illustrator and export them to SWF files which can then be embedded and accessed directly in Flex using the [Embed] directive.
It involves a different way of thinking about it, but let me put it this way: I started off as a graphic designer who could code, and loved and used Flash to create cool interactive animations that used complicated and extensive ActionScript. Then I started working in Flex and once I got to a certain level of proficiency I completely abandoned Flash. I don't use it at all anymore unless I have to work with someone else's Flash files directly.
If in your HTML/Javascript/CSS work you're the kind of person who codes in a text editor first, Flex is going to feel right for you. If on the other hand you rely on DreamWeaver or some other visual tool, you may want to stick with Flash. Bear in mind that Flex also has a fairly rudimentary "design" view, which I never use because it just gets in the way. As would DreamWeaver.
Edited to say: I should add that you can also create animations in Flash and use them in Flex. So you don't have to abandon Flash to use Flex, but it just might fall out that you do, as I did.
Flex has a bunch more components out of the box for handling data -- and is much more geared toward handling data than Flash. And Flash is much more geared towards "animation" (in a broad sense of the word).
You can create your skins in Flash if you want, but skinning in Flex 4 in general is much easier and more robust than in previous releases.
It sounds like Flex will suit your project better, and you can decide as you go if there's a piece that may be more suited for Flash. They're working together pretty well in Flex 4.
Flex & Flash.
Flex for robustness and ease of development.
Flash IDE for assets libraries (gfx, sounds & animations to import in Flex).
I've tried looking everywhere for a concise list of the advantages and disadvantages of using Flex vs. Flash.
Coming from a programming background, I absolutely love Flex. It's easy to pick up, and since it can use flash classes, why would I want to use Flash without flex?
Flex:
Pros:
good for RIA development
provides many user-input options out of the box
Build in lay-outing system
the MXML is easier for non-programmers
You can quickly combine components to create small applications
components can provide an advantage in large-scale projects because of their modular
nature.
can be developed using linux
has a nice component lifecycle for validation, etc.
Cons:
increases the size of your .swf
Customizing the look of components can take a lot longer than anticipated, depending on the visual style you're looking for
when you find out you need a custom component that doesn't exist, you might need to go back to Flash to do the real programming work and packaging of the component
The "flexibility" of Flex means you will be reading a lot of documentation
Bugs in the Flex framework
You eventually will need to compromise with the architecture of the Flex framework
Flash
Pros:
good for making movies/animations
Timeline can be easier for designers/animators to conceptualize
when working from scratch, provides a great deal of control.
easier for someone with a programming background
You can program whatever you like; no compromises with existing frameworks
Cons:
only provides basic user input (text box) out of the box.
timeline can be daunting for programmers (although you can quite safely ignore it)
Development of certain types of applications will be slower than with Flex
can't be developed using linux
user input validation must all be handled in the code. No built-in validation.
need to implement your own lay-outing system
Please correct me if I missed anything said so far.
Flash and Flex both use the same underlying rendering engine, just with different front-ends. Flash is better suited for making movies and animations. Flex is better for application development.
From a programmer's viewpoint, the big difference between Flash and Flex is not so much which IDE/application you use for programming, but whether you program in ActionScript (AS) only, or use the Flex framework and MXML to program your applications.
I would say pure ActionScript is better for programming (whether you use Flash IDE or Flex IDE is not that relevant), and MXML is better for non-programmers to combine the components programmed in AS.
I would add to your list these pros/cons:
Flex:
Pros:
Easier for non-programmers to get into application development
You can quickly combine components to create small applications
Components can provide an advantage in large-scale projects
Cons:
Customizing the look of components can take a lot longer than anticipated, depending on the visual style you're looking for
When you find out you need a custom component that doesn't exist, you might need to go back to Flash to do the real programming work and packaging of the component
The "flexibility" of Flex means you will be reading a lot of documentation
Bugs in the Flex framework
You eventually will need to compromise with the architecture of the Flex framework
Flash (or Flex IDE in ActionScript project mode):
Pros:
Easier for someone with a programming background ;)
You can program whatever you like; no compromises with existing frameworks
Cons:
Timeline can be daunting for programmers (although you can quite safely ignore it)
Development of certain types of applications will be slower than with Flex
In short: pick the right tool for the right task.
Flex is a library of code written in ActionScript3, so it adds lots of capabilities and standard-library-like stuff to Flash. The downside is that it a is a huges amount code that gets included into your application. If you use any Flex at all in your app, the download size of the SWF goes up by 100's of K.
If your application has any kind of user interface widgets, then you almost have to use Flex as Flash itself only has the most basic things like text boxes. Flex has a whole XML GUI with layouts, data binding and XML setup etc.
Doing that in flash, you end up having to write from scratch things like list boxes...
In my opinion, the most important feature of the Flex framework is the component lifecycle, which provides a really elegant model for validation/invalidation of properties, component size, and hierarchical rendering.
The benefit to developers is that it creates discrete application phases for business logic and rendering, avoiding expensive geometry & rendering code until the last possible moment before drawing a frame.
Here's a really good presentation, explaining how it works:
http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f15384v1002
The model is so well-designed that the component lifecycle remains almost entirely invisible during the majority of Flex development, when you're using the framework default components and containers. You only need to learn the inner-workings when you start developing your own components.
Developing in the Flash environment, or in pure Actionscript, you don't get any of that. Anyone developing pure AS3 applications either needs to code very carefully to separate business logic from rendering, or will suffer severely decreased performance.
[...] why would I want to use Flash without flex?
Flex is a new product, whereas Flash existed from the Macromedia days. Designer, animators and most anybody who is not brought up on a staple diet of programming education will probably find Flash easier to master than most other such solutions.
Target is different.
Flex is more dedicated for programmer while Flash is more friendly to Artist / web designer.
Flash is the IDE used (generally) to create animations and things that work well on a timeline.
Flex works better for creating internet applications which have interactions more akin to a desktop.
Why use Flash? Well, if you need to do something more specifically attached to a timeline, of course!
I see Flex as more of a solution for doing RIA applications where you need to develop application based solutions. There's quite a lot you get right out of the box with using Flex but it also comes at a price in terms of file size, granularity, etc.
If on the other hand you are working on a totally custom solution such as a game then perhaps Flash is the way to go because you can start fresh with a blank canvas. Many people still use Flash because they don't need all the app based bells and whistles of the Flex platform.
I like the freedom of Flash, and its really simple to embed assets in Flash, a little more confusing to do in Flex.
One thing that I love about flex is the ability to make a fluid application with minimal effort. Which would take forever in Flash.
Anything you can do in flex you can do in flash, just may take a lot longer to do. You can't do everything in flex that you can do in flash though.
Flex takes care of all the UI programming for you and lets you focus on the business logic, with flash you will spend a majority of time programming the UI.
You can develop Flex applications under Linux easily but with Flash you simply can't.
Another solution that was not suggested at here, will be to use them both. You can add flex components to flash movie clips using ContainerMovieClip. And you can add flash movie clips to flex components using SpriteVisualElement. Another thing that wasn't mentioned was lay-outing your application. It will be flex pros against flash disadvantage, because you got build in flex lay-outing system. But again when you are using them both, you can layout your movie clips with flex lay-outing system.
Also flex become Apache top-level project. And it become more and more excepted by the community now.
Flash and Flex are 2 complete different things, one is a design tool with support for action script, the other one is a framework that also has action script but is maily built around MXML which is a XML based UI definition "Language".