Much discussion ensued in the Flash and Flex world today as Adobe announced to the community that they’re rebranding Flex Builder as Flash Builder. It’s a good change, in my opinion. Though I consider myself a Flex developer at least half the time, I think I’ve actually worked on more pure AS3 projects in Flex Builder than Flex projects. It’s clearly not a Flex-only development environment, and the new name is far more accurate and widens the audience, in my opinion. It may cause some initial confusion (as all rebranding does), but I think that any problems will clear up quickly.

I’ve noticed a few people wonder out loud if explicitly declaring that Flex is a part of the Flash brand in the product name will turn off developers who are considering Flex. We all know that a certain subset of the developer community has a lasting grudge against Flash due to its occasional misuse on the web, so this almost seems possible. However, I suggest thinking critically about that concern for a moment. Don’t you think it’s rather obvious that Flex runs in Flash Player? Is it really conceivable that a developer would never realize that Flex is really Flash-based with even the smallest amount of research? If someone is so anti-Flash that simply seeing the name of the development tool would turn them away, I would expect them to have the same reaction after a quick visit to their favorite search engine or Wikipedia to learn a little more about Flex.

Also, can we stop with the irrational fear that Flash Builder will replace the Flash authoring tool? Do you really think Adobe would decide to start ignoring the massive number of Flash content creators who draw things by hand, work with animation on the timeline, and understand symbols in the library much better than code in classes? Flash Builder is a code-centric development tool that advanced developers find more comfortable and productive. It would need years and years of development time to implement all the features needed to replace the Flash authoring tool. Not to mention the massive amounts of training Adobe would have to commit to in order to move developers and designers from one to the other. These two tools, Flash CS and Flash Builder, have many of their own unique use-cases, but they can also co-exist for the same user. I create art for my games and applications in Flash CS, while I write all my code in the current version of Flex Builder. They’re separate tools, though, and both must exist for Adobe to have any chance of making their target audiences that don’t overlap happy. You need only look at the incredible differences between the layouts of each tool to see that. For some of us, that means we need to purchase both, which may be a little expensive. Personally, I’d say that each falls under “one tool that does one thing, but does it well”, so they’re worth the price.

Changing the name of the development environment you use shouldn’t mean that you must change your job title, the experience you list on your resume (one word only, if you happen to list the tools you know), or what you write in job descriptions when you want to hire a developer. A Senior Flex Developer is still a Senior Flex Developer, regardless of whether he or she uses Flash Builder, FDT, FlashDevelop, or a simple text editor like TextMate with a command line compiler from the Flex SDK. A Flash Developer is still a Flash Developer in the exact same way. If you build Flex applications, then market your technical knowledge by only talking about Flex, Flex, Flex(!), if you feel that’s important. You don’t need to tell your clients what IDE you use, if you’re worried that the word “Flash” will cause them undue stress. Personally, I think you’re probably causing yourself too much stress by wondering how the name change will affect others.

As I’ve probably made clear, I don’t believe that the name change from Flex Builder to Flash Builder will be bad for either brand. What’s strange to me is that I’ve seen the strongest pushback coming from the Flex developers in the community. What’s up with that, guys? I consider myself one of you, but sometimes I don’t understand you. The name Flex will become much clearer because it will always be a Rich Internet Application framework that runs on Flash Player. No more IDE that’s called Flex (but does more than Flex), no more expensive server requirements. Those parts of the old Flex brand are surviving separately on their own merits now, as they should, and the framework can now be Flex without interference. The ubiquitous Flash Platform will solidify a bit more with another “Flash” branded product, and maybe the Flash name will even a little more respect from those developers who think Flash is all about animation and banner ads. I doubt that Flex will lose any respect, though. It gained ground with developers outside the Flash community because it’s a great open source framework for building RIAs, not because it somehow separated itself from Flash. Sometimes, good libraries and frameworks can change the minds of developers by being just that, good. Look at how JavaScript went from being a web toy to becoming a serious language in the last several years. I think Flex will continue to gain mindshare in a similar way, and I think it can only benefit the Flash Platform as a whole.