flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Amit Goel <agoel....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Flex incubation on Apache as Opensource
Date Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:44:58 GMT
I beg pardon to disagree David Arno on:
who gives a shit about a 250 extra bytes in a SWF?!
I had times when I was required to produce the reason to my client whenever
my subsequent release build of Flex swf increased by 1K. So that means I
need to clarify my client that 4 interfaces have been added, and that
costed that extra 1K!

I am no pessimistic about Apache Flex, I do see it coming brighter day by
day. Just had few concerns/doubts regarding what Adobe donated to Apache.
Thanks all for making the point clearer.

@Raju Bitter:
Thanks for the details.
Amit Goel

On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 11:45 PM, David Arno <david@davidarno.org> wrote:

> >> Whilst Adobe will own the specification of ActionScript 3, we will own
> >> the mxmlc and falcon compilers. We therefore get to choose what
> >> changes we make to the language that Flex is written in. If our
> >> changes require us to rename the language to ApacheScript or some such,
> then so be it.
> >Just so there aren't any misconceptions, this isn't entirely true.
> In what way isn't what I said 100% true? Who other than Apache Flex
> committers will get to choose what the future of the Flex language is?
> > Also, every byte matters. You say "who gives a shit about a 250 extra
> > bytes in a SWF?!".  I say this guy and many others. Many people are
> > pushing for a smaller lighter framework, not a bigger one.
> Thus my suggestion for FlexLite. Plus Omar's comments about the ridiculous
> size of many Flex components will indeed affect the size and are a far
> better way to reduce size than tolerating shoddy code for perceived size
> gains IMO.
> David.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message