Is Flex development without FlexBuilder realistic?

Question

Is it realistic to try and learn and code a Flex 3 application without purchasing FlexBuilder? Since the SDK and BlazeDS are open source, it seems technically possible to develop without Flex Builder, but how realistic is it.

I would like to test out Flex but don't want to get into a situation where I am dependent on the purchase of FlexBuilder (at least not until I am confident and competent enough with the technology to recommend purchase to my employer).

I am experimenting right now, so I'm taking a long time and the trial license on my Windows machine has expired. Also Linux is my primary development platform and there is only an alpha available for Linux.

Most of the documentation I've found seem to use Flex Builder.

Maybe I should use Laszlo...

Cathouse

Answer 1

I've been using Flex since version 2 and Flex3/BlazeDS since it came out of beta. I also have some experience with Lazzlo and the difference is day and night (Flex rocks!). I have not regretted once using Flex. Regarding FlexBuilder, it is worth every penny. While it is completely possible and reasonable to write Flex application without FlexBuilder, the productivity gains of using it will more than recoup the investment. Try the evaluation for 30 days and compare it to some of the other options suggested about (I'm going to try FlashDevelop).

Some things you get with FlexBuilder include:

• Code completion
• Visual editor
• Debugger (it is fantastic!!)
• Profiler (also very good)

Regarding Linux, the alpha version of FlexBuilder does not have a visual editor. Other than that, I understand it is reasonably feature complete, still free, and many of the Adobe employees I've talked with that use Linux are happy with it.

Hum

This is an update quite a while after the question was answered, but it appears that Adobe is no longer supporting FlashBuilder (was FlexBuilder) on Linux. – Cathouse

Answer 2

IntelliJ IDEA works as a Flex IDE, if you happen to also be a Java developer. It's free if you contribute to open source projects.

Anglicist

Answer 3

Check out FlashDevelop for Windows. I like it better than Flex Builder.

Haerr

Answer 4

FlashDevelop is really easy to setup with the Flex SDK. Just download FlashDevelop, then download the Flex SDK. In FlashDevelop go to Tools > Program Options > AS3Context (under Plugins) > Set the "Flex SDK Location" to the root of the folder you extracted the SDK to and build away. FlashDevelop even has a basic MXML project that will get you going.

If you use ColdFusion for the backend, having FlexBuilder in Eclipse and CFEclipse can mean one less IDE to have to get familiar with.

Inkberry

Answer 5

I'm going to join the choir here and say FlashDevelop for an alternative. The only reasons you might want FlexBuilder are:

1. Flex charts
2. Step-through debugging.
3. Profiler (I haven't used it)
4. Visual style editor

However, the code-completion and general bloody-awesomeness of FlashDevelop's code-completion and syntax highlighting knocks the gimpy eclipse crap out of the water. So, pretty much what Todd said, except for the code-completion part. Flex Builder is very flakey in that department.

Accusation

Answer 6

Short answer: Yes

I'm working on a team of developers and designers. We code our .MXML and .AS in FlashDevelop 3 and our designer creates .FLA with skins and widgets that get [Import()]ed in ActionScript.

I wrote a little more about this subject here:

Flash designer/coder collaboration best practices

Judejudea

Answer 7

I have been using FlashDevelop for along time (4/5 years), I am actively using it to develop Flex4.5 applications, it has built in support for code completion, it has a profiler and a debugger that work excellently. The IDE itself is responsive and require the .Net framework, in fact here, I'll list some stuff.

FlashDevelop Pros

• Free IDE
• Code completion feature
• Very capable Debugger
• Profiler
• Documenting
• Ability to build Air / Flex files
• Templating
• Plugins

FlashDevelop Cons

• Lack of UI desing support
• .Net support only (Won't work with Mono)

Everything else is pretty simple to get running with, the instructions are available at http://www.flashdevelop.org/

Engelhardt

Answer 8

Absolutely. I've been a Flex developer since Flex 2 and until recently I've used my regular editor, TextMate, for coding and Ant for building. TextMate has some good extensions for ActionScript and Flex coding, but I think you could get that for any decent editor.

What's been missing from my setup is a usable debugger, the command line version is a pain to work with. Because of that I've been starting to use FlexBuilder on the side, using it in parallel with my regular setup.

Having a profiler doesn't hurt too.

Cimino

Answer 9

I've been using FlexBuilder for awhile now and just started to switch to using Eclipse with Flex SDK. I work for a non-profit so the word FREE is huge.

Initially, it is fairly intimidating so if you have the money, you might want FlexBuilder.

There is a lot you need to know and do if you use the SDK. The learning and experience may pay off though... I am still undecided myself.

Gantlet

Answer 10

I second FlashDevelop. You don't get the visual design stuff for the MXML, but for the code (both MXML and AS) it's excellent.

Jonathanjonathon

Answer 11

I also use FlashDevelop when working on AS3 projects. For me, the ugliness (UI design) and sluggishness of Eclipse/Flex Builder is enough of a deterrent to stay away from Flex Builder.

In addition to the weaknesses of FlashDevelop pointed out previously, one of my biggest gripes is that it is not a true .NET only app and therefore will never work in mono and therefore can not be easily ported to the mac - which is my platform of choice for development web/javascript/AS3 development.

Savitt

Answer 12

Amethyst is also a pretty good option to try. It is a plugin for MS Visual Studio, and takes advantage of a lot of the goodies there. It is significantly less sluggish than FlashBuilder, has a really good debugger, and a decent visual designer as well.

The personal version is free, but quite crippled. You have to buy the pro version after a 60 day free trial. However, it is (at time of writing) almost 1/3 the cost of Flash Builder.

As an added bonus you don't need to pay for Visual Studio since it works with the free (albeit hard to find) "shell version (integrated)" of Visual Studio. It won't work with any of the free Express editions, though.

Glade