[Golist] Go: Scary-complicated?

Wed Mar 5 00:37:31 PST 2008

Timothy Uruski wrote "I think the perception of Go being complicated also
comes from people's familiarity with Fuse" and definately he is right. I
think every developer who used Fuse, are trying/ will try make his own
go-fuse version.because I think we got used to it.  And actually, I wonder
that where is current active Go users' custom tweener classes. I think we
need more samples. 

Angela, I am in same stuation with you. I have little experiance with go,
but we want it, we love it and yesJ we are fun of it. So your ides is great
Moses. Wee need like that stuff. And according to me, Go is complicated,
when I think on it, it seems that "you have to consantrate it and you have
to write your own custom tweener, if you dont do that you can not use GO".
And that thought makes me feel stressed, makes think that there are lots of
things to do/achive.

But, of course we have to consantrate on it yes J so, your effort about
helping us with some video or presentation material would be very very
useful and would be great shurtcuts for us.

Regards, 

Burak

From: golist-bounces at goasap.org [mailto:golist-bounces at goasap.org] On Behalf
Of Timothy Uruski
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 11:00 PM
To: golist at goasap.org
Subject: Re: [Golist] Go: Scary-complicated?

Moses,

I think the perception of Go being complicated also comes from people's
familiarity with Fuse. Fuse was easy to use, but went pretty deep by
comparison, which could be throwing people. The idea of building Fuse with
Go sounds daunting, and there could be a sense that you are required to roll
all that functionality yourself, even though it might not be required for
the code you're writing. People hate losing options, even when it costs
them.

Also, it's possible that people are confused by the methodology change.
Instead of controlling everything through the Fuse class, you create
individual tween objects, which seems more complex.

Tim

On 4-Mar-08, at 1:00 PM, golist-request at goasap.org wrote:

Send GoList mailing list submissions to
            golist at goasap.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
            http://goasap.org/mailman/listinfo/golist_goasap.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
            golist-request at goasap.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
            golist-owner at goasap.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of GoList digest..."

Today's Topics:

  1. Go: Scary-complicated? (Moses Gunesch)
  2. Re: Go: Scary-complicated? (Angela Ferraiolo)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:56:48 -0500
From: Moses Gunesch <moses at goasap.org>
Subject: [Golist] Go: Scary-complicated?
To: Mailing list for the Go ActionScript Animation Platform
            <golist at goasap.org>
Message-ID: <48147780-4E36-4B8F-913B-C1BC8613C070 at goasap.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed;
            delsp=yes

Hi everyone,

So now that the new site is live, let's assess how I did for making Go  
approachable.
Go is actually very simple once you understand it, but before that it  
intimidates people and seems really complicated.

So:
Are the goals of Go still confusing?
Is the presentation of Go confusing?
Is it intimidating, say if you had first seen it at the new site
http://www.goasap.org/ 
 ?
Is it clear yet that very little is required for the compatibility  
layer ? just GoEngine, GoEvent, and PlayableBase/IPlayable ? and that  
everything else is entirely optional?
Is it obvious yet that it's very easy to build a tween over LinearGo  
in 3 easy steps or does that still feel like everest?

Here's one idea I had ? a swf slideshow with a "next" nav button, that  
would walk you through step by step how Go is structured. Because each  
bit of it is extremely logical and is there for a reason... for  
example, GoItem is there as an abstract base class for any animation  
type, not just tweens, and PlayableBase sits at the very core because  
some things that you can play, are not animations at all, like a  
Sequence. I want that structure to be really clearly presented but I'm  
worried that the Architecture page does not show this simply enough....

thanks,
Moses 

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 12:22:47 -0500
From: "Angela Ferraiolo" <aferraiolo at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Golist] Go: Scary-complicated?
To: "Mailing list for the Go ActionScript Animation Platform"
            <golist at goasap.org>
Message-ID:
            <4499c75b0803040922o66462498ibf315fd2178f614f at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252

Hello Moses & the list,

Thanks for Go! A .swf walkthough would be awesome!

It is not that your site is confusing so much as there is
a lot of new stuff to learn right now on all sides. Anything
you can do to help speed the process would be greatly
wonderful and go-tatstic.

Right now Go is still in my "to do" list! But I am a fan.

Thank you again,

-- Angela

On 3/4/08, Moses Gunesch <moses at goasap.org> wrote:

Hi everyone,

So now that the new site is live, let's assess how I did for making Go

approachable.

Go is actually very simple once you understand it, but before that it

intimidates people and seems really complicated.

So:

Are the goals of Go still confusing?

Is the presentation of Go confusing?

Is it intimidating, say if you had first seen it at the new site
http://www.goasap.org/

 ?

Is it clear yet that very little is required for the compatibility

layer ? just GoEngine, GoEvent, and PlayableBase/IPlayable ? and that

everything else is entirely optional?

Is it obvious yet that it's very easy to build a tween over LinearGo

in 3 easy steps or does that still feel like everest?

Here's one idea I had ? a swf slideshow with a "next" nav button, that

would walk you through step by step how Go is structured. Because each

bit of it is extremely logical and is there for a reason... for

example, GoItem is there as an abstract base class for any animation

type, not just tweens, and PlayableBase sits at the very core because

some things that you can play, are not animations at all, like a

Sequence. I want that structure to be really clearly presented but I'm

worried that the Architecture page does not show this simply enough....

thanks,

Moses

_______________________________________________

GoList mailing list

GoList at goasap.org

http://goasap.org/mailman/listinfo/golist_goasap.org

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
GoList mailing list
GoList at goasap.org
http://goasap.org/mailman/listinfo/golist_goasap.org

End of GoList Digest, Vol 4, Issue 1
************************************

__________ Informazione NOD32 2921 (20080304) __________

Questo messaggio è stato controllato dal Sistema Antivirus NOD32
http://www.nod32.it

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://goasap.org/pipermail/golist_goasap.org/attachments/20080305/861f89eb/attachment-0001.html 