OK, it seems that Adobe may have dropped the ball with this one on the developer/designer workflow, but I would astill like to ask the question, because it may enlighten me to some obvious thing i am missing:
Please can you tell me how you visualised catalyst being used on an iterative/agile project, by a modern real-world development team?
Catalyst seems completely geared towards a waterfall approach to design:
1) design the application.
2) export FXP.
3) code application.
As I am sure you must be aware this is a very old fashioned way of developing user-centric RIA's, and so I am wondering what the actual workflow you think should be used for a team that collaboratively develops and designs an application in an agile and iterative environment environment.
1) Prototype application.
2) Code prototype a bit.
3) Run a story with a bit of functionality and design.
4) Demo results
5) Update designs/code to reflect comments from demo
6) Possibly add more stories to backlog.
7) goto 3, until happy to deliver.
In the real world, design and code walk hand-in-hand towards an evolving goal, but Catalyst seems to completely fail to address this, am I wrong?
Thank you for your time in answering this.
I've been wrestling with the same question as well. A very well known developer in the Flash platform posed the question, "Will this write code that gets people fired?" - without a true agile workflow angle, it may not get people fired, but FC is going to only server about 1/3 the use cases it could have had the roundtrip process between FC and FB been able to become a reality.
I'm still hopeful for FC, but some of those hopes have diminished. Not being able to go back down to AI from FB via FC is a major letdown.
I am also very interested in finding out if the code can be generated iteratively. Like how feasible is it to modify the generated code and then export the FXP again after some design changes?