When someone like Colin, the guy who wrote the AS3 book, writes something like this its certainly going to make some waves. At first you might think, "Gosh Colin, you're the definitive guy to ask AS3 questions to yet you're complaining about it. What gives?". But Colin is not speaking for himself, and he points that out very promptly. He's really speaking for all the people he has come in contact with who are trying to learn AS3, and its fair to assume thats probably a ridiculous amount compared to your average Flash user.

At first I thought to myself, "Whats the big freakin' deal with trying to learn AS3?".  For me, it wasn't all that difficult to get into. I picked it up relatively quickly upon playing with it for a few days. Why was it so easy? I could be wrong, but my guess is because I'm comfortable reading the provided documentation (I can understand it) and have a good understanding of object oriented programming practices. I also have the luxury of having the time to learn new things (and realize not everyone else does).

Then I started thinking about what it was like for me to learn ActionScript 2 (luckily I avoided the TellTarget days). I can remember making things work, but never really understanding why they worked. I copied and pasted a lot of code from forums and sites. The more I spent time looking at the code the more I started understanding it. I was able to spend a lot of time with the code because that was my job, to make Flash content. Soon I moved away from the on(release) syntax and started putting code on the timeline because it was easier to find (sort of). That of course forced you into using this.onRelease = function(). That sort of made sense at the time, but I sort of always knew that there had to be a more "logical" way. In the mean time, I started to formulate methods of doing common things, such as making a navigation set, moving from scene to scene, etc. I rolled them all by hand using the simplest API's available in AS2. And they worked! But I knew people were doing it in a "better" way.

So this is where I stopped (thinking about how I got into ActionSript 2). This is where it seems most of the people Colin is talking stopped with their interest in programming (not Flash itself). My guess is that their jobs, the projects, or just their own ambition never brought them beyond this point. For me, my jobs have always forced me into learning new stuff or being resourceful enough to translate a designer's idea. The more I read the more I coded the closer I got to understanding object oriented programming and being able to program using OOP concepts. But again, not everyone gets to that point in this industry. Flash was, and still is, easy to make simple, interactive/rich content without going crazy with code.

So now ActionScript 3 and Flash Player 9 are here. And yes, its a total pain in the ass  to have to deal with a new syntax and start hearing all these crazy programming terms tossed around. Its totally intimidating and not necessarily a welcoming thing to anyone who isn't interested in getting more into programming . Especially when you've been using a product for so long and have had success with the old way of doing things. But the days of simple Flash content are over. And if you're still using those old methods, you're probably not using the Flash Player to its utmost. Luckily you can still use ActionScript 2.

But its time. Its time to make the leap! Flash needs to go this direction if it's going to stick around as a viable web technology. And I must say to all the old schoolers, I'm sorry, you're gonna have to find the time to learn if you want to take advantage of the new features. Its just the nature of technology (the beast). When enough people use it and push its boundaries, performance limitations, etc, Adobe is going to make advancements. Unfortunately, major advancement sometimes takes a major restructuring. The future of the platform depends on these advancements and I welcome any and all changes Adobe makes.

I hope I'm not coming off as an elitist, because I certainly make every effort to teach people how to use ActionScript 3 at my job. And I would do so with anyone else that wanted the help. The more people that know how to use it, the better. I also agree with some of the comments that have been made about making it easier to add interactivity using JSFL panels 'n what not. Although it should be intuitive and use correct coding techniques. I wish I had the time to devote to something like that (I don't know JSFL), but instead, in effort to spread the love, I'm going to post some code in my next entry that will hopefully make it easier for all you oldschoolers to get into ActionScript 3. I definitely feel as if there isn't enough community support for this sort of stuff. I think my first item of business will be how to turn a MovieClip into a button and fix that parent problem.

In recent months both of you have released wonderful ActionScript libraries that allow us developers to access your mapping services. To have the same power (questionably more) as JavaScript developers is totally freakin' radical. What more can us developers ask for when giant companies give us code for free to use their amazing services...well...for free! Unbelievable and inspiring.

However, while I am totally stoked to have this at my disposal, I am also very annoyed about something. What bothers me even more is that I can't figure out what this feeling is rooted in. Is it because I'm impatient? Is it because I'm concerned for the industry? Am I feeling forgotten about? I'm not so sure yet. But I do know one thing, and that is both mapping API's you have released are described as being for Flash. And I'm sure I'm not the only person that saw this and got excited, only to find out that the API's really are only meant to be used with Flex. Sure, Flex is Flash you say! But Flash is also not Flex.

Ok, so whats the big deal you ask? Flex is great, right? Right! So don't get me wrong, I freakin' love Flex. But I also love plain old Flash too! Don't you? Ok, so maybe you don't, but a lot of people do. And ok, so you say there's at least one way to "hack" the SWC file to get it to work in a non-Flex SWF file. And I quote "hack" because I felt really dirty doing it, even though it was someone at Yahoo! who explained how to do it. In fact, I did this on a recent project at work. It came out pretty good, but c'mon, what a joke! That's no way for a developer to have to write code!

What is the reason for this? Yahoo!, I know for sure you're not utilizing the Flex framework for anything in your API because it works if you "hack" it into a non-Flex SWF. Google, I'm only assuming the same is true for your API. So this begs a question that I'm guessing anyone can safely formulate themselves.

Certainly there are probably other reasons you've only released a Flex SWC, but what the hell are they? Lack of resources? I doubt that. More code security? ActionScript can't be more sensitive than JavaScript. Laziness? Possible. Apathy? Who knows. Maybe I'm just a whining minority in that I'm primarily a FlashDevelop/CS3 user. I hardly ever write code in CS3, but I love the ability to create custom artwork for particular views, components, etc. and write my hinted, OOP code in FlashDevelop. Will I ever see the day that I can easily use your map API's without having to use the Flex SDK or Flex Builder?

But I digress. Hopefully I'm speaking for some other developers out there, and I'll certainly live if this never happens. But what gives guys?

Annoyed developer,
Matt

My opinion on this matter is a bit mixed. Part of me is looking at this type of idea with great skepticism, another is looking at it with a little jealousy, and a small part is looking at it with some hope. I'm more curious what other peoples' opinions are on this subject.

Arnold is an interesting entity here in town (I live in Boston), they're one of a couple monolithic agencies that have the reputation, at least in the small agencies world, of being a great place to go before you retire. Now this is only a reputation. I know plenty of people who work at Arnold and they're all great, talented people. They're also all on the account side of things. And I'm not going to lie, I've interviewed with Arnold back in 2006 when I was leaving BEAM.

One reason why I didn't want to take a job with them, although offered, was because their interactive shop seemed small, uncommunicative, closed in, and lacked talent on both the production and direction level. Next to that, their client list wasn't as pleasing as I might think a large agency could be capable of winning. I think back then, their big client was Caribbean or Radio Shack. I'm sure they have won some bigger clients since then. Really, it's a moot point anyway, most of their interesting interactive work is farmed out to smaller chop-shops around town.

Now this leads me to the jealousy side. How did two guys land a job with a large agency and basically get to create a role where they'll get to play all day, but never actually have to make anything that would make Arnold money. I would love a job like that, although I'd probably get bored without any financially driven direction.

I possibly lack the understanding of what Arnold's capabilities are. At least in order to put together how a group like this can exist inside the walls of a company that does PR, print, broadcast, and low-level interactive work. You mean to tell me that they're going to bust out a new creative campaign that works in RFID tags, or motion-capturing computers, similar to something that a group of MIT grads at Small Design would do? And for what client? Tag? Jack Daniels? or truth? (these were the three mentioned in the article, and probably their most interesting)

This skepticism comes from a bigger opinion that larger companies are looking for the new "what's next" to get them on some list of companies who are innovative and thinking differently. They mention Apple as motivation. Really? Apple? Last I checked, Apple wasn't in the market to try to sell body spray to a target demographic of 18 to 22 year old apes. Apple has an R&D department because they make technology and products that people invest time and money in. Such as the iPhone, iMac, iBook, etc...

As I write this, the skepticism is maxing out. Realistically, agency work only resides on a wall, in a magazine, on TV, and on the web for a couple months (tops). I say this because I'm consistently frustrated with the fact that work I do is only live for a short time, after spending so much time and effort building it. This idea is only amplified when you put the words like "non-traditional" or "non-billable" behind it. In my opinion, it's a lot of time and money put in to a hobby that most people of that caliper would do at home on a Sunday and not eight hours a day for five days a week. Or would go work for Apple on products and not spin wheels trying to "think creatively" about alternative ways to advertise body spray.

In all fairness, there is some optimism in my mind for something like this. This is a bold move for Arnold. It takes bold moves to make change. I can even see some similarities to the point in time when a large agency decides that it needs to start hiring nerds to do interactive, but have no idea what it takes. In either situation, the move has been made and people learn what their roles are, or how to deal with the new. Hopefully, at least in Boston, this move leads to results that prove financially worthy of having a group like this in the agency's arsenal, and other companies start to follow. Such interactive groups could lead to more creative and interesting work that we all can imagine designing and building.

Or it could lead to another motion wall that comes, goes, and people only remember it because their friends were dancing like idiots while making fun of it.