Hello everyone, developers of ‘as3air’. I have only recently self-taught ‘box2d’ and I would like to ask if ‘as3box2d2.1alpha’ is a beta or official version? Thank you
It says in the library’s README.txt (and the version you quoted):
Box2DFlash v2.1 alpha
So the developer has released it as “alpha”.
That does not mean it has bugs. It just means it might and the developer is making sure we’re aware of that.
During the learning process, ‘AI says as3box2d2.1a’ is a beta version, so I’m here to ask someone who knows about it
AI also mentioned that the beta version has unstable features and “bugs”, urging me to use it with caution
I am currently concerned about two questions: 1. Is “as3box2d2.1a” a beta version or a release version? 2. Is “haxelib box2d” ported to “as3box2d2.1a”? Thank you.
No need to ask AI, the developer has released it as “alpha”, which is the developer telling users, “this may contain bugs”.
It is neither “beta”, or “release”. It is “alpha” (pre-beta) as labelled.
To be clear too, these naming conventions aren’t based on any strict standard imposed on developers. When a developer labels something as “alpha”, I’d treat it as nothing more than the developer communicating: caution, this may contain bugs.
So treat it as such.
Are you judging by the name ‘alpha’ or do you have any relevant release instructions?
I think the preview test you mentioned above and the test I mentioned mean the same thing. Are you sure that “as3box2d2.1a” is not the official release version?
I am doing nothing more than relaying what the developer has told us (you and me), via their version label.
README.txt
Box2DFlash v2.1 alpha
Release 28 Mar 2010 by Boris The Brave
See source files for license.
visit
* http://box2dflash.boristhebrave.com
* http://sourceforge.net/projects/box2dflash/
for updates/details
The version is labelled, “alpha”.
Does the README.txt in your version say something different?
It seems that you made the judgment based on the name ‘alpha’,
That’s exactly why I’m asking.
There are two situations now, 1 “alpha” is the beta version, 2 “alpha” is not the beta version, and “alpha” corresponds to the version of “C++” at that time, so we can only ask people familiar with “as3box2d2.1a”
This is my interpretation now, but as it is “Box2DFlash v2.1” that is labelled as “alpha”, I’d suggest that it’s specifically referring to the Flash version being an alpha release.
Now, it’s possible the source C++ was also alpha 
but in either case, it was the Flash library developer who labelled their version, alpha.
It seems that if you want to know if “as3box2d2.1a” is an officially released version, you still need to ask someone familiar with “box2d”
What do you mean by “officially released”? What are your expectations?
Would you use ‘preview. 1’ in your project?
I usually don’t use ‘preview. 1’, if I have a choice
Alpha version software, is generally early pre-release.
I’m not sure what you want someone to tell you. The Box2DFlash author has themselves said their software is alpha (pre-release). But your response to that was:
So what is it you’re wanting to know? Is the “alpha” version actually stable?
It’s why I asked what your expectations were.
It’s possible it is stable, and as you’ve said, it would be someone familiar with Box2d who could answer that. That doesn’t change the fact that the developer officially released it as “alpha”.
You have already answered, and you said ‘as3box2d2.1a’ is a pre release version. I checked the ‘haxe box2d B2Settings. hx’ file and it shows’ 2.1alpha ’
It seems that ‘haxe box2d’ is a ported version of ‘as3box2d2.1a’
So the question is’ as3box2d2.1a ', is it fully functional? Is it stable? Is there a ‘bug’? After all, you also mentioned that this is a preview version
Box2D 2.1 alpha was released in 2010 according to this blog post. In the post, the author says the following:
Code is still alpha quality, which means a) bugs, b) no guarantees for changes in syntax.
However, it has been 16 years since then, and additional new versions were never released after that. In that time, if the 2.1 alpha version had serious bugs, those bugs would be well known and documented online. In other words, easily found by searching the web. To me, this suggests that even though the author considered the code to be “alpha” (which is usually released even earlier than a “beta” version), it was actually very stable.
Good morning, I just saw your reply. Thank you very much,
Thank you for providing the article. I have read it and the author clearly stated that they have released a “box2d2.1a beta version”
Perhaps it’s a translation issue, but the author doesn’t mention “beta” in that blog post at all. It is “alpha”.
In terms of release preparedness, the cycle roughly follows (and this is open to different interpretations) :
- Alpha (very rough, expect bugs)
- Beta (coming together, expect bugs)
- Release Candidates / RC (seeking bugs, maybe release ready)
- Release (passing all tests)
A developer is under no obligation to follow those release types, but many do. Some use “Preview” (Haxe), which is open to interpretation, but I suppose it fits in somewhere around Beta or Release Candidate.
Did you read that article?