Flash builder is a "flashier" name of course...
I think it confusing the market (stock) analysts. If there are too many names, it makes the company look unfocused and a higher risk. Similar to a comment about Mozarts's music having "too many notes" Or it could be all the other development platforms are rapidly heading over the cliff and everything will be based on eclipse and users will have to upgrade to a new platform.
Who provides training ?
I'm not a big fan of vertical development platforms, except for abobe's. I think abobe is taking the correct approach, although (IMO) they are entering the open source market too cautiously.
I really wish they would open the the desktop players to open source. They don't charge for it...The current player is very limited and can use real multithreading. I can understand the need to maintain tight control over some aspects of the player technology, But, there are also some very interesting server based applications if the logic portion of the runtime would be broken out as a seperate execution environment. Then, real gains could be made in architectures, security and identity.
When you talk about "the logic portion of the runtime", do you mean the ActionScript Virtual Machine? If so, this is already open-source:
Adobe Flex SDK Team
Thanks for the reminder and the link to taramin. I completely forgot about it. This will work...
Answer: It isn't.
The real reason for the change:
Adobe just wants to make a clear distinction between free products (Flex SDK) and for-sale (Flash).
Just think of it that way, and let the Adobe marketers believe they made a brilliant decision.
But Flash (Player) is free too. Their marketing logic sucks.
I think the new name shows the real power of Flash Builder, it generates SWF
files most of the time (wether you create a Flex app, pure AS3 app...), so
it's definitively not only intended for Flex apps. It's just a name.
Does it matter if my name were James instead of Michael? I don't think so,
my passion for computer science would be the same.
Well I'm not saying I'm switching to Silverlight over it or anything. But if preventing confusion was their aim, I'd say they created as much confusion for Flex developers (as they wonder where Flex Builder 4 is) as they MAY have eliminated.
Yeah it creates SWFs, but they're Flex SWFs, which is a little different from a "Flash SWF"--different requirements and implications. FB SWFs require Flash 9 to run, and run better in 10 due to the library caching. A minor detail perhaps but explain that to the new Flex developer who wonders why his "Flash SWF" built with Flash Builder doesn't run on Flash Player 8.
Maybe I'm wrong here but sometimes I wish Adobe would consult their community a little more about things like this (if they do at all).
But you know what another pain in the rear is? Now every security goon out there who's paranoid about anything containing "Flash" in the name is going to knee jerk react to Flex apps before they even understand what it is. Sure they'd probably figure it out eventually, but by then, maybe you're already started the project and they'd have to produce actual arguments because they're up against an ongoing project instead of a proposed one...heh heh heh.
Good point, but if I'm not wrong FP 10 market penetration is over 70%.
In the short term it's a bit confusing if you're not already using
Flex or Flex Builder but I think in the long term it'll be other way
around. That's also why Adobe must create heck of documentation
explaining what's Flex, Flash Builder, Flash Player, and the Flash
Authoring tool (aka Flash CSX) and how they integrate and work
This is a little OT, but.....
Can anyone in adobe get OS thread (and synchronization) support into flash player & flex ? I'm begging...
Good points also, anyway I guess it's all moot now...