« Structured Log Testing Release | Main | 360Flex Presentation Slides »
Flash Builder (formally Flex Builder)
| By Rich Tretola | May 19, 2009 | |
| 2,891 views |
Adobe has re branded Flex Builder as Flash Builder in order to remove confusion over the outcome of the tool. How do you feel about this? Do you think this name change will accomplish this goal or will it simply lead to additional confusion over what the purposes are for Flash CS4, Flash Catalyst, Flex SDK, and Flash Builder?
Creating a SWF
- Use Flash Catalyst to create SWF which will run within the Flash Player
- Use Flash Catalyst to create a project that can be imported into Flash Builder
- Use Flash CS4 IDE with AS3 to create SWF which will run within Flash Player
- Use Flash Builder with the Flex SDK or AS3 to create SWF which will run within Flash Player
Do you feel this is confusing?
Topics: ActionScript 3, Flash Player, Flex | 21 Comments »
May 19th, 2009 at 7:56 am
Can I edit Flash (.FLA) files in Flash Builder?
Since I can write MXML in Flash Builder, can I write it in Flash CSx?
Does Flash Builder have a timeline?
Does Flash CSx have a constraint based layout system?
If I’m new to the platform, do I buy Flash CSx or Flash Builder if I want to make animations? Apps? Both?
Some of these are trivial, some of them are not. Just because the end product is a SWF that runs on the Flash Platform, doesn’t mean everything has to be labeled Flash.
In the end though, I’ll just say I use Eclipse if anyone asks. Saying I use Flash Builder would be .. embarrassing. Heh.
Reply to this comment
Rich Tretola Reply:
May 19th, 2009 at 8:31 am
You can write MXML with any text editor. You don’t need Flash Builder, you just need to use the Flex SDK to compile.
Reply to this comment
Oleg Filipchuk Reply:
May 19th, 2009 at 8:52 am
So in this case we do not need to buy this expensive toy, isn’t it?
Very interesting point on this ridiculous rebranding:
http://riapriority.com/en/blogs/index.php/constantiner/flex-builder-is-now-flash-builder
And my opinion:
http://olegfilipchuk.com/2009/05/18/name-and-shame/
Reply to this comment
May 19th, 2009 at 9:04 am
I didn’t like it, sorry.
I prefer to have separated tools, separating by responsibility, like thebouv said, or you have a macro IDE that makes everything, or let it separated by name.
So, what is the confusion? Flex is just a framework, and Adobe has an IDE solution to help to develop, the Flex Builder.
Reply to this comment
May 19th, 2009 at 9:26 am
I don’t think the name change is confusing. It’s fairly logical that “Flash Builder” is for building (i.e. compiling) Flash, which may or may not be using the Flex Framework (which i a set of AS3 and MXML files, just like any framework for flash, but which also contains a couple of compilers.)
However, I do think your schematic is confusing. First of all, will the Fx icon still exist, just for the Flex SDK? The Flex SDK isn’t an application, so I reckon the Fx icon would go, right?
Also, the Flash CS4 row indicates that you first use Flash, then morph/compile/edit it into a AS3 file, which then gets compile into a SWF. That’s just wrong. I reckon the first arrow should be a plus sign (Fl + AS3 -> SWF.)
Also, would you really use FC on it’s own to create SWF files? To create a real, data consuming app with some business logic, isn’t the workflow supposed to include Flash Builder?
Anyway, I welcome the name change. I do think, however, that Flash CS4 as a name is a bit ambiguous. It should be Flash Designer CS4 or Flash Studio CS4 or something like that, to highlight the difference between it and the platform as a whole (simply called Flash.)
Cheers
/R
Reply to this comment
Rich Tretola Reply:
May 19th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
You are correct and I updated the image accordingly.
Reply to this comment
May 19th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Latins used to say: “Omen nomen”.
Honestly I don’t think the name is important, as long as I have one tool built ONLY to focus on code writing (as3 and mxml).
Reply to this comment
May 19th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Should the above diagram show that Flash Catalyst also creates MXML that can be opened in Flash Builder? That’s one of FC’s powerful features, the fact that a designer can start the project and hand it off to a Flex developer to complete.
Reply to this comment
Rich Tretola Reply:
May 19th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Good point, I just updated the diagram and post.
Reply to this comment
May 19th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Additional confusion…
http://www.asvguy.com/2009/05/why-i-dont-think-flash-builder-is-a-good-name.html
Reply to this comment
May 19th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
> How do you feel about this?
Good move by Adobe and long overdue. They shouldn’t stop there though.
> Do you think this name change will accomplish this
> goal or will it simply lead to additional confusion
> over what the purposes are for Flash CS4, Flash
> Catalyst, Flex SDK, and Flash Builder?
I don’t feel this is confusing, bearing in mind that these are highly technical products to start with. My granny is never going to get it, but for me and my colleagues this move seems logical and accomplishes this goal.
Flash Builder is for building Flash products and it can consume and integrate Flash related output from a number of sources.
Flex Builder was a bad name, both because it didn’t correctly describe the function of the product and because google returned a load of stuff about gross steroidal men with disgusting muscles and veins popping out of their faces.
The most confusing thing and the one which Adobe should have begun with, is both of the products called ‘Flash’ (the player and the IDE). Having two products with the same name is a recipe for confusion. The Flash IDE should now be renamed to ‘Flash Designer’, ‘Flash Animator’, ‘Flash BadTextEditor’, or something appropriate.
Reply to this comment
May 19th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
@Richard Olsson Says:
> Anyway, I welcome the name change. I do think,
> however, that Flash CS4 as a name is a bit ambiguous.
> It should be Flash Designer CS4 or Flash Studio CS4
Richard, I read your post after writing mine. Flash Studio is a GREAT name, much better than Flash Designer. It’s got a certain coolness to it and ’studio’ implies ‘designer’ anyway (lots of designers).
Not really on-topic, but while Adobe are on a name-changing roll, they should rename Contribute. The name of that product has always irritated me. One of those names dreamt up by a marketing committee in a boardroom. The most legendary names are almost never sensible. Two come to mind: Dreamweaver and Flash.
Reply to this comment
Oleg Reply:
May 19th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Natasha, you must be kidding, the word “studio” in Visual Studio implies that it is designer’s tool? LOL
It’s not about coolness of name but about managers to sign off the $$$ for buying new tool, and with ridiculous “Flash” builder it will be much harder. That’s the main problem with Adobe – all key decisions made by designers and are all about Flash. All Adobe employers and evangelists sing odes to the coolness of new name, but they are all missing one important point – it’s not about developers with flash background anymore. There are too few of us, but millions of Java, .NET, PHP etc developers, and they actually matter. They need to be converted and persuaded.
I work in very big team with a lot of former .NET, Java developers who actually do Flex and ‘flash’ is dirty word for them. You won’t change it in a day…
Reply to this comment
May 20th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Please don’t!!!
Reply to this comment
May 20th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
@Oleg
> Natasha, you must be kidding, the word “studio” in
> Visual Studio implies that it is designer’s tool?
If Microsoft have a badly named product, I don’t see what that has to do with the rest of the world. ‘Studio’ to me implies a creative place with multiple facilities. Richard was referring to the Flash IDE, not Flex Builder. The Flash IDE is a designers tool. Flash Studio would be a great name for such a richly featured designer’s tool.
> It’s not about coolness of name but about managers
> to sign off the $$$ for buying new tool, and with
> ridiculous “Flash” builder it will be much harder.
I’ve been there on the manager issue and it was easy. I gathered examples of extremely wicked, non-typical Flash applications written by some huge corporations. For example, 17,000,000 downloads for the BBC iPlayer transcends any preconceptions about Flash. I educated the managers, and the managers were glad to be educated. After all, one reason they were paying me was to keep them informed and up-to-date. Don’t apologise for a bunch of banners. Show them something great and build your case.
If you sound embarrassed, as you seem to, then I guess you won’t have many takers. If you are trying to sell Flash to your managers but pretend that Flash isn’t really Flash, then you’re going to lose.
> That’s the main problem with Adobe – all key
> decisions made by designers.
That statement simply doesn’t have any credibility whatsoever. I don’t work for Adobe and have no inside knowledge, but it is plainly clear to anyone that not all decisions made by Adobe are made by designers. That’s just nonsense. Many decisions would be made by, or for designers because Adobe has a truckload of designer products, such as Illustrator, Photoshop and Flash Catalyst. Fair enough?
Now consider products like BlazeDS, Livecycle, the Flex framework, Cairngorm… I so sorry but nothing about those products has any meddling designer fingerprints on them. And for a company comprising hundreds or thousands of highly intelligent developers, I suspect Adobe’s internal developer community are pretty vocal and easily able to hold their own.
> all key decisions made by designers.
> and are all about Flash
Now you’ve completely lost me. Flex/Flash Builder is a Flash product. It exists solely for the purpose of creating Flash. That might be a tiny clue as to why this decision was “all about Flash”.
> All Adobe employers and evangelists sing odes to
> the coolness of new name, but they are all
> missing one important point – it’s not about
> developers with flash background anymore.
Adobe rename a ‘Flash’ developer product to ‘Flash…’ and suddenly it’s not about Flash developers any more? Sorry, you lost me again completely.
> There are too few of us, but millions of Java,
> .NET, PHP etc developers, and they actually
> matter. They need to be converted and
> persuaded.
As far as I can tell, Java developers have been adopting Flash with no hesitation, in large numbers. Also as far as I can tell, millions of companies with .NET produced web sites have Flash all over them.
Reply to this comment
May 21st, 2009 at 6:31 pm
[...] Everything Flex « vorheriger Eintrag 21. Mai 2009 (23:30 Uhr) – flash & flex, web nach [...]
May 26th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
[...] With all of the chatter lately about the renaming of Flex Builder to Flash Builder and the many ways of compiling SWF with the Adobe tools alone, Kevin Suttle and myself thought it would be interesting to see what [...]
May 26th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
[...] on Windows 7: No ProblemKoen.cz » New Poll: What IDE do you use to create Flash content? on Flash Builder (formally Flex Builder)Peter on Fx namespace change spurs controversy [...]
May 30th, 2009 at 1:05 am
flashdevelop.
Reply to this comment
August 30th, 2009 at 11:17 am
[...] Flash Builder (formally Flex Builder) | EverythingFlex: Flex & AIR blog.everythingflex.com/2009/05/19/ – view page – cached [...]
October 4th, 2009 at 1:16 am
You mean formerly Flex Builder, not “formally” Flex Builder, right??
Reply to this comment