News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Ask HN: Why not Flex? by lhorie on Thursday September 03, 2009 @05:40PM (#803632)
What put me off was that mxlmc was really slow (10-seconds-to-compile-a-hello-world kind of slow). Also, I find that debugging HTML/CSS/JS stack is really easy with Firebug et al, whereas debugging swf's isn't quite a walk in the park.

With that being said, every development environment will have its warts. If you're sick of HTML/CSS/JS, nothing is stopping you from using whatever you want. Look at the QuakeLive guys, for example.

Re:Ask HN: Why not Flex? by Erwin on Thursday September 03, 2009 @06:15PM (#803691)
Don't invoke mxmlc every time -- that has to start up Java, and that's what's slow. There's a compile "shell" named fcsh that comes with the Flex toolkit that starts up a JVM once and lets you recompile without having to relload all the libraries.
Re:Ask HN: Why not Flex? by hasseg on Thursday September 03, 2009 @07:59PM (#803894)
Fcsh is indeed a lot faster than mxmlc. I've written a small shell script that stands in for fcsh and provides an interface like the standard mxml compiler (mxmlc) so that you can just call it (like you would call mxmlc) and have it return an exit status instead of dropping you into an interactive shell like fcsh does. It's called fcshctl:

http://hasseg.org/blog/?p=194

Re:Ask HN: Why not Flex? by teej on Thursday September 03, 2009 @06:38PM (#803741)
Thanks for sharing this - you just sped up my Flex development workflow by a huge factor.