3 ms·
I wish they'd focus on the Flash/AS3 part and drop MXML. AS3 (aka DOA ECMAscript v4) was a pretty solid language offering the flexibility of JS with native clas
by darkmarmot 10y ago
I wish they'd focus on the Flash/AS3 part and drop MXML. AS3 (aka DOA ECMAscript v4) was a pretty solid language offering the flexibility of JS with native classes and types that were optional... The declarative aspects of MXML were beneficial but half-baked IMO.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- hatsix 10y agoI disagree... looking at the rise of JSX and HTMLBars, MXML was, if anything, ahead of it's time. Being able to compose a page of components allowed for a clear understanding of the composition hierarchy, while allowing for structural components (like tabs) that have their children defined by the parent. MXML is a key part of why Flex as so popular... AS3 helped, but Flex let teams of developers and designers work on projects... something that couldn't be managed w/ JS frameworks of-the-time. If all you want is AS3's features, look into TypeScript.
- camwest 10y agoI agree MXML and the Flex Component model feel very similar to JSX and the React Component model. For example take a look at the way the MXML Component Lifecycle worked: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2588503/mxml-component-life-cycle http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2588503/mxml-component-li...
- 0x0 10y agoSeeing XAML/WPF/Silverlight in the microsoft c# world after seeing MXML was like going one step backwards, in my opinion. Very similar but XAML is more awkward and verbose.