RIA are more richer when it is developed using Flex. Will this be an obstacle for developers using Javascript for front-end?
Will javascript be replaced with Flex?
+2
A:
Adobe probably had some hope for a convergence until the proposal to approve and release the 4.0 standard for the next version of ecmascript got derailed - it was essentially actionscript. Now things are headed most likely to a very modest enhancement of what we already have, numbered something like 3.1. Google for "ecmascript harmony".
Since actionscript requires the flash runtime but javascript requires only a browser - any browser - developers will continue to consider it the best choice for all users as the Lowest Common Denominator.
le dorfier
2009-03-21 05:53:21
A:
Both ActionScript and javaScript are implementation of ECMAScript. In fact ActioScript is a better implementation of ECMAScript and its object oriented too.
Problem with javascript is that it is rendered by browser engine and each browser uses a different engine so the problem of browser compatibility is always there in it.
While Actionscript runs on flash player it gives a uniform performance in every browser.
Javascript can be easily replaced by flex and both are quite similar. Infact Actionscript is very easy to learn compare to javascript.
Chinmay
2009-03-21 13:11:34
JavaScript is object oriented too, is just thet it's exclusively prototype based. public/protected/private don't make a language object oriented. Another thing is that ActionScript implements an ECMAScript draft, namely the fourth edition which has been... abandoned in favor of ECMAScript Harmony.
Ionuț G. Stan
2009-08-01 12:22:19
+3
A:
This may be nit-picking, but we've run into subtle and slight behavior differences between FlashPlayer on the PC and FlashPlayer on the Mac on our (very) large RIA.
"Uniform performance in every browser" is generally true, but not always.
Phil
2009-03-21 13:19:23