RIA CFML Flex Flash

Adobe Misses Flex Boat

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:51:00 -0700

It's my opinion that Adobe is making a mistake renaming Flex Builder to Flash Builder. Simply put, when it comes to business applications, businesses still don't want to buy a Flash solution. Adobe should catch this wave created by the Flex craze and call it just that, Flex.

Is Flex now Flash? New Flash Builder name stinks.

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:26:00 -0700

It sickens my stomach to think what a big mistake this name change is, changing Flex Builder to Flash Builder. I've never seen so many new jobs open up for a single product than I have with Flex. Flex jobs are everywhere and paying good. Flex, Flex, Flex. Not Flash or Flash Applications Developer, just Flex. The main point here not matter what you think of the whole ontology of Adobe products is that FLEX is to the industry a seperate paradigm, even though it's not quite that much of a shift. We (developers) know the underlying truth but it won't hurt if the client doesn't know that the application your proposing and demonstrating is in fact a Flash based application built using the Flex framework. All they need to know is that, sure, it's a Flex application. Technically it's an Internet application that runs in the Flash player developed using a Flex framework MXML markup and ActionScript through a Flash Builder IDE. If you want to specialize in Flex, fine, you're a Flex Developer. However, if you want to create an Internet application that runs in the Flash player developed using the Flash IDE then you are a Flash Developer. I just don't think it's fair that Flex Developers have to work in a product named for a totally seperate skill set. The most difficult thing for myself to understand is whether or not to continue to call myself a Flex Developer or should I say Flash Developer? If I say I'm a Flex Developer in 3 years and there's no "Flex" product, will they know what I'm talking about? Flash Builder is I think going to kill the Flex momentum. In war momentum is everything. This was a bad decision and I don't know if they can ust change their minds now or not but what can it hurt, better than killing it altogether. Adobe needs to get a backbone, admit to the mistake and go back to calling it Flex. It really is a totally different business solution from Flash. Please, I'm trying to save future careers here.

New York and Atlantic City Vacation

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:01:00 -0700

The wife and I took a 6 day retreat together, first stopping off in Virginia to hook up with friends then on to Atlantic City for some gambling and NYC for sight seeing. The drive from here just outside Atlanta to their house in VA was about 8 hours, stayed overnight then they drove the 5 hours to AC in New Jersey. We stayed 3 nights at the Harrahs hotel and casino and liked it so much we extended another night. The casinos were our main attraction and we enjoyed the boardwalk just as much as it took 2 days to explore it. It's pretty long and a little busy with people of all walks of life. It was the weekend but even on Sunday it was a feastive atmospher with the Steel Pier, kind of like a mini Coney Island. Much to do and see with lots of little shops. You don't have to walk if you pay for a ride on a two seater stroller pushed around by some guy. The weather was excellent, food good, and beach was littered with shell pieces and dirty sand. The casinos we visited were Harrahs, Bally's, Wild Wild West Casino, Ceasers, and one other I think. Ceaser was the most impressive with it's Roman themed architecture and the WWWC was neat with it's big western thing looking like a California gold rush scene complete with animatronics and sound effects. That's were we tried the ponies for the first time, horse racing. We won some and lost a little. Our friend hit a thousand dollar jackpot on a slot. I played some Blackjack and enjoyed it as usual. Our friends played BJ for the first time too and loved it. We did a lot, too much to fit it all here without rambling on. The New York city excursion was done on a Sunday, arrived by car via the Lincoln tunnel about 2pm and left around 9pm. We parked at a public parking place on 54th street near Times Square for about $20, no problems. The streets were bustling but not jam packed and it was pleasent. Our walk took us to the visitor center were we looked into tours but passed on the $80 per person price on a 2 hour dubble decker bus ride. We followed the advice of a local for food and ate at Johns Pizzeria on Times Square and it was excellent. For $8 each (unlimited rides) we took the A train subway down to ground zero for a look and pictures. Then back uptown to 34th street to visit the Empire State building. The Empire was empressive as the tallest building around without the trade towers. We toured to the 89th'ish floor for $20 each and it took about 30 minutes to get there through the crowd and security. Be prepared to be treated like your at the airport, including metal dectectors. There's a gift shop, the view is spectactular if you can wedge up to the edge, and they take a picture of your group that you can purchase later if you want. Coming out of the Empire State building we visited the shops across the street then headed for the subway again stopping at a hot dog stand vendor for a dog and pretzel. Headed again uptown on the A train to 59th street to get back to the car and stopped for pictures at Studio 54. Getting in and out and around was fine. You can't drive around unless you have all day and there's plenty of parking, for a normal Sunday any ways. I was a little dissapointed with Times Square but it wasn't New Yorks fault. I wanted to stand there and take it in you know, like you see on TV but you couldn't. Some stupid loud Christian music choir concert thing took up the entire square with a thousand other idiots actually listening to it while delusionist tried to pushed pamplets and ideas into your hands and head, a very unpleasant mob. Driving around up passed Virgina and Atlantic City I never seen so many tolls. It cost probably about $15 in tolls to get to NYC and $15 to get back. Then we went back to Atlantic City to gamble on some ponies and walk on the boardwalk one last time before heading back. The trip back was uneventful and I'm glad to be home again, but can't wait to go back too. Next time I think we'll try Vegas as we haven't done that yet. We have pictures I haven't gone through yet and may post them later but you should go yourself if you haven't yet. Now, back to work..

Do ColdFusion programmers need to be object oriented gurus?

Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:25:00 -0700

Before I begin let me just say that although I'm not a certified Java developer, which would make me an automatic OO guru, I do develop Flash and Flex applications using AS3, which is an OO language. Yes, when it comes to OO I know what I'm talking about and have studied and used patterns for a few years. I'm not a pure OOist but who is and who really needs to be? I'm so tired of chasing that alusive brass CFOOP ring of knowledge, trying to become a an object oriented guru with the deepest depths of understanding. I'm already there and so are you, seriously, its not as far as you thought. And I'm talking to CF verterans that use cfc's as objects, and patterns (whether they know it or not) to solve problems. You may not be using pure OO but you are OOing purely enough. For those reading this that know nothing of OO please stop and go read a few beginner OO basic articles and then come back. There's only about a 10% difference between OO in an "OO language" like Java, and OO in the ColdFusion scripting language. And that 10% difference is used about 1% of the time. So you can't create interfaces (technically you can with underlying Java), big deal, and completely irrelevant too. Creating "I" classes is simply rewriting the original class in a more impressive way and there's only a 1% chance you'll actually need the real thing. Interfaces for the most part are for compile time error checking and CF is not a compile time language, not at our level it isn't. Let's see, what else is there that I'll probably never have a need for, or can do in some other CF way. Overloading, constructors, overriding, and multiple inheritance, and that's about it. As for the constructor, we use an init function on object instantiation as a consturctor for now but, CF 9 will have implicit constructors. Overriding can be accomplished in CF using composition. BTW, implicit getters and setters will be available in CF 9 also. Other than the lack of multiple inheritence (which isn't a requirement to be considered a true 'OO capable' language, like Java and Smalltalk), if Adobe added overloading capabilities then CFers could be concidered OOers too. And just like a Java coder can produce crappy non-OO code so can a CF coder create crappy non-OO CF code. Here's the thing though, follow me. ColdFusion is a RAD tool that can be structured in an OO way following proper OO techniques. ColdFusion is OO when and if you need it to be but we certainly don't want it to be totally and purely OO, ever, EVER. If you make it pure OO say goodbye to rapid development and say goodbye to the market it is ment for. OO was devised to help solve complexed problems in very large systems, something that CF can but doesn't do much of. Those complexed and very large systems are far and few between, the market is in the average system, which don't need OO much any ways. All that being said, if you've got the jest of OO terminology down and have enough understanding of the underlying principles that you can apply it safely, stop worrying about it and get back to work. The only way you can become a better OOer is to practise it. And as for those Java guys laughing at us CFers when OO is mentioned, they're just trying to chase away the new kids in their OO sandbox, spoiled sports don't want to share the spotlight. Honestly I don't consider anyone an OO programmer based on the language he uses, it's how he uses the language that defines a programmers OO understanding. And if people will stop refering to CF as it was prior to the MX version we'de stop having this debate in the first place. Once apon a time, ColdFusion couldn't be architectured with OO principles, but now it can. The end.

ColdFusion OO, MVC, and Frameworks

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:19:00 -0700

Saying that you don't need OO or MVC to build a ColdFusion application or web site is like saying you don't need blueprints and building code standards to build a skyscraper or a house. Granted, blueprints are overkill for a birdhouse but, OO and frameworks are overkill for a one product web site too. You should know when all the overhead is needed and when it is just going to be overhead. To me, it seems like this is the real problem when it comes to utilizing more sophisticated coding techniques rather than just plain old coding. In all actuality most of the complaints, confusion, and questions come from weekend programmers who don't need to concern him or herself with such extremes. But they make a mountain out of a mole hill (or an application out of a web site in this case) because they want to hunt with the big dogs or think they need to or should, or they just feel inadaquite if they don't. I don't blame them, I did too, and I wouldn't be where I am today if I didn't venture into the world of software engineering. But all that stuff didn't add anything positive to my low level projects at the time except taking more time to do it, so be careful. Here's the honest to goodness truth about using all that fancy stuff. Any site or application created using any of that overhead can be created just as well with straight down proceedural coding. The end user, and sometimes even the client wouldn't know the difference between one and the other unless you pointed it out and showed them. In all frankness, only about a quarter of web sites need to bother with anything more than simple code, yet three quarters of web developers think they should. My advice to web development noobs is to stick with the one thing you need to get the job done unless and until that job requires more than what that language can do efficiantly on it's own. Who knows, you might develop a simple site that makes you a millionaire without ever knowing what OO is. But if that site begins to grow unwieldly with errors coming from nowhere, it's time to turn to more sophisticated techniques. It's time to use MVC, properly incorporate a framework, and maybe even learn some OO terms and patterns. Then the question "when should I use the fancy stuff" becomes "how, what, and where do I use these". Personally I use an MVC architecture on anything over a dozen pages, frameworks on anything with more than a few applications, and OOD/P on anything considered an enterprise. If you must, its important that you be able to do these things with professional precision to get something out of it. Your not going to get any ROI using a framework on any application if you've never used one before, so don't practice where your paycheck comes from. MVC is a term used to describe a seperation of concerns, the business model, the user interface, and the central controller. It's not a product and there is no one right way to do it. As long as the thinking is done in one place, the displaying done in another, and neither knows about the other except through a controller, your using proper MVC architecture. Pretty simple right? If you only have a few events, or page views, then yes it is. But, try rolling your own MVC on a medium size project and you'll grow to appreciate frameworks rather quickly. A framework is basically an MVC, structured and expanded for medium to large scale projects. That is, it supports agile development by not only insuring best practise MVC organization, but also offers commonly used programming logic in prebuilt API's. It's the foundation or base that will be the strongest part of your structured application if used properly. Object oriented programming basically helps when you can objectify parts of a program into seperate entities and only if there will be a lot of them. In addition it's only benificial if those parts will be very active during the life of the application. By active I don't mean the use of the application, I'm talking about moving things around, enhancing them and depricating them, or allowing others to use them. If an object is going to be static in that regard, then it shouldn't be factored into the decision to use OO. In summary, something important to think about while you hone your enterprise software engineering skills is that, as you get more comfortable with this sophisticated stuff you'll become more able to use those bigger skill sets on smaller scales. I for one find myself able to flesh out an OO UML model for a simple site in a matter of minutes. An OO noob might waste valuable precious days over the same thought with a negative ROI. So yes, you can use this stuff on smaller scales effectively when it becomes second nature and you don't have to think about how but what. As for all those naysayers that are swimming against the industry tide and trying to convince you that it's all uneccessary, they couldn't be more wrong. The storm is coming, mark my word. Maybe not in our life time but soon, developing web sites will be out of the range for the average Joe and the strongest of proceedural coders will be lost without keeping up. Stop pouting and start evolving, accept it, embrace it, love it.

My desk at home

Fri, 22 May 2009 12:36:00 -0700

In case anyone asks and since I just organized my workspace here in my office, here's my office. A family room (converted to office) next to foyer in my home. I took the liberty of taking a picture and had the camera out any ways. Plus it's raining and I have nothing to blog about today.
+Click for larger The books are just what I reference most, book shelf not pictured. Clipboard contains copy of the Coldbox framework cheatsheet pdf. It's a 23" screen and the keyboard and mouse are wireless, good for placing the keyboard on your lap leaning back and typing in style. Put the mouse on a bar stool to my right and I never have to sit up straight. ;) Also there's a picture of my lovely wife with a teddy she gave me. The orange square thing is a Shamwow, the one made in Germany. Guess what the dark ominous thing is lurking to the left of the monitor. Btw, I have Eclipse pulled up on the screen but it just washed out. My custom built PC is on floor to the right with a Seagate usb HDD sitting lit up on top.

Republican Democrat Conservative Liberal test

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:12:00 -0700

I took this test about 2 years ago and here are the results I posted at that time: 2006 Political Test Results Since then, 2 years later (2008), I have changed my mind mostly about one thing: Religion. I used to claim to be a Southern Baptist Christian until I actually read the Christian bible closely and slowly, studied other religions, and gave it some serious rational thought. Now I am non-religious and even view religion as organized crime. I took the test again today and here are my new results:

You are a
Social Liberal
(83% permissive)

and an...
Economic Liberal
(38% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Strong Democrat

Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid.com: Free Online Dating
Also : The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

I went from a Republican Conservative to a Liberal Democrat. Which just proves that Republican Conservatives are non-thinking delusional idiots who haven't really thought things through, believe anything, and do whatever someone tells them to do.

Quick comment about code comments

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:56:00 -0700

Do any other programmers out there have the same problem I do about coding comments? They actually get in my way and hender my efforts more than help anything. I'm not talking about being too lazy to comment your own code, I'm talking about reading other's code also. Frankly, in trying to figure out what someone left behind, I read the code. It always makes more sense than the comments and it's just faster. Instead of having to both read the comment and the code, I can just read the code and get on with it. It's my belief that comments were once useful when code was much harder to read. Things like ruf = af * int(irp) when you had to back up and find out what all the letters were for before going forward. But now you have something more like registeredUserFunds = accountFunds * int(interestRatePrime). This is mostly due to cheaper and more expansive memory allocation with better bit utilization, I think. But you can see where a comment for the later is unwarrented. Granted, there are still languages out there that could use some comments and arguably they should mature with the rest of the OO world. And there are still programmers who actually still use 2 or 3 letters for long parameter names, and they should grow up too. To sum it up, good programming and good coders should have no need for comments except around possibly main ideas and sections. An architect doesn't need blueprints to pretty much figure out how a building was built. He can size it up with a skilled eye. Personally, other than commenting main sections, I think commenting every other freaking line should go by way of the Dodo bird. Please stop overusing comments so I can read your damn code! Trust me, I know how to read without reading instructions.

Music from the past

Tue, 06 May 2008 09:22:00 -0700

I produced a few "songs" why back many years ago and placed them online. A few times since then I have found myself looking for where I left them (I should put them on CD for safe keeping). Any ways, here's the link for my own future reference, finally. http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=35247 Yes, I know they are terrible. This was in my beginning phase using MTV music producer or something like that. Now I use FL Studio and softsynths to create completely original stuff with much more of todays sound. Maybe I'll put some stuff online one day for your amusement.

My Favorite 80s Videos

Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:22:00 -0700

ColdFusion MX 7 Certified!

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:26:00 -0700

I took my Certified ColdFusion MX 7 Developer Exam today and passed! Score: 98%
Advanced Certified ColdFusion MX 7 Developer
Flex and Java certs are planned early 2008.

Review - Call of Duty 4, XBox 360

Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:19:00 -0700

Call of Duty 3 is no comparison to this next release. Call of Duty 4 is like another game altogether, completely different. I thought that Call of Duty 3 set the new standard for grittyness and realistic smoke and atmosphere, but Call of Duty 4 takes it to yet another level and brings in far better particle reality and bump mapping. There's so much to say I don't even know where to start. Screenshots and gameplay movies do no justice for this realistic modern warfare game, you gotta be there and play it. Call it a game if you want, but I call it a virtual simulation. The only thing that could make this better is being there. From the beginning you know this is a leap forward in game technology. It starts off great and each senario just gets better, I literally couldn't put it down. I liked Halo 3 and played it for a night, but this I played all weekend and can't wait for more. If you don't own an XBox 360 and needed a reason to buy one, Call of Duty 4 will do it for you. Call of Duty 4 is the only game you need for the XBox 360. If anyone says this game isn't awesome, they are lying through their teeth. The realism in the game is for real, almost photo like. The weapons shoot like the real thing, I should know because I was in the Army. The only thing missing was the actual phsyical recoil in you hands and the ocassional jam. Grenades and flash grenades have realistic physics, sound, range, and look. You can shoot at and blow cars up next to enemy in the fight for a mass kill. Bullets hitting the enemy tear through with bloody realism. And it gets better. Going into an area for a mission, your flown in by chopper. While flying into the area, you man the guns and shoot enemy from roof tops, blow up cars and gas trucks and tanks. Then you might repel down for ground combat. One of the missions puts you into a high altitude air support plane where you have 3 different weapons to use in providing air support for the ground troops with different zoom sights and radius kills. This looked and played like you seen in actual military footage. And the commentary is cool and a little funny. There is a point in one of the missions at the end where a nuclear device is detonated while your being extracted by chopper. This seen is jaw dropping, I've never seen something like that in a game. You barely survive and climb out to witness the massive power of nuclear destruction. The mission where you are a snipper is very realistic. One of my favorite plays of all my gamming days. You'll want to go back and do it more perfect than the last. Watch out for the attack dogs, which you can soot or fight off. I played it on the easiest setting and probably not even a quarter the way through, it just kept getting better. This is the only game I've come across in the last few years that I actually want to play all the way through and often. What could be better? I didn't play it on hard, but I hope the AI gets better from the enemy. I would rather be pinned down and have to improvise and outsmart than just run through shooting like a mad man. More individual sound ro talk from the enemy would be cool, like the guy you shoot to screem in agony, or to hear them shooting position moves. Being able to shoot out lights and go commando or 007 would be cool. More team interaction and planning, although that may make it too complicated. Maybe have a mode of play thats too real, where you can be killed or mamed from one bullet, than your buddies have to carry you or wait for rescue while staying alive. Possibly radomize where shots may land on your body from head to toe. Shoot in foot slows you down, in hand make you shot with other and worse, shoot in head or chest is instant death, and so on. More civilians running around, in houses, at work, etc.. Per mission or charecter job duties like ground troop, air support, tank, etc.. where you can play a mission over with a different job duty. Ability to enteract more with invironment like open doors, switch lights, cut wires, drive cars, operate machinery, pick up and throw stuff or use as weapon. And maybe some hand-to-hand actual fighting. Mostly just smarter enemy where they duck and hide if you shoot at them instead of just standing there till he's dead. Where he tries to sneak around on you and come from behind, etc.. I thought Halo 3 had a big marketing campaign but a so-so game. Halo 3 was fun but not worth the hype. Call of Duty 4 should have had all that hype, it should have been the game of the year, it should be on the freakin news. This game rocks!! Next weekend I'm inviting friends and playing it on the digital projector on a 120" screen with stereo surround.

Spitfire Model Plane

Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:12:00 -0700

My first of many to come of high quality paper model replicas. These will be card stock paper type planes. But first I scan and print out the design to light weight copy paper and build the plane with that. Then I build the card stock model. The paper build is just for practise. I'll upload pictures of the finished models to see and the design pattern you can print out and try yourself. Best if printed on 60-120 lb. card stock type paper.

And yes, they do really fly. BTW, if you want to make custom adjustments like adding wheels, your on your own. Best to use a small pair of sissors (sharp) and/or exacto knife, and stick glue. It's not easy, take your time and put some thought into it, it's all about patience.

First Model Paper Plane

Fri, 09 Nov 2007 07:07:00 -0700

My first attempt to try a model paper airplane. Unlike plain paper airplanes, these resemble actual planes. Yes, they can fly, but not mine. Instead of using glue and exacto knife, etc.. I just used tape, making it too bulky and heavy to fly. But I thought it was a valiant effort using office tools only. You can find these plans online with searches. This one is black and white and simple, ready for coloring. But I just did it to see if it could be done, what it would look like, how hard and how long it would take, and if it was sturdy. The landing gear I reinforced with a business card cutout, but the plane was built from one sheet of 8.5 x 11 paper. The landing gear folds inward and the tail elevators work. The wings slats are slightly curved for realism. The body is 4 sheets thick and the whole thing is solid for paper. Next time I may use heavier stock paper.

Here are a couple other resources: http://www.southflorida.com/events/sfl-edge-n-paperplanes,0,2199675.flash
http://www.airplane-collectible-best-net-resource.com/paper-airplane-model.html

Halloween 2007

Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:45:00 -0700

We had a ghoolishly good time with friends, family, and neighbors. Kids loved it. I heard comments like "Awesome", "Oh, your really cool dude" and "Hey, thats just like a movie". And of course there were screaming kids running away and some who were to scared to come over and get candy. This was my first year in a long time to dress up and it was fun. For this years spooky graveyard sceen I added two more monsters, a 750 watt strobe light, a digital projector, and myself. Take a look at the 2007 halloween photos and movies.