Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of mattjpoole@gmail.com designates
 209.85.216.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CB320EDD.39A04%aharui@adobe.com>
References: <04a201cccfef$40a72150$c1f563f0$@davidarno.org>
	<CB320EDD.39A04%aharui@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:33:38 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <CAJqp=CyVn0z90GQcqKYm07L9JD5BG1_hqKugd=NsnQkB2dHrXw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ActionScript and Apache Flex
From: Matthew Poole <mattjpoole@gmail.com>
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3074d2d62b5ad904b63e2adf

--20cf3074d2d62b5ad904b63e2adf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

+lots to exciting times

On 10 January 2012 23:50, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On 1/10/12 3:26 PM, "David Arno" <david@davidarno.org> wrote:
>
> > I assume you mean here that the mxmlc compiler uses code also found in
> the
> > asc compiler?
> Yes.  Actually, these days, it shortcuts that a bit, but that was
> essentially the original architecture.
> > I didn't think asc existed as a separate executable that is
> > called by mxmlc. When Adobe contribute first mxmlc and then falcon to
> > Apache, we will - I assume - have the full code base to the complete AS3
> > source -> bytecode compilation process. Am I mistaken in this?
> >
> ASC is a separate executable but MXMLC doesn't call the executable.  MXMLC
> just links in some of the same files that go in the ASC.EXE.  When we check
> in MXMLC, Apache will have code that converts AS3 source to bytecode.
>  We're
> still sorting through the IP issues of whether that can be the same files
> that are in ASC today.
> >> I don't understand how the compiler can affect the language.
> > The compiler turns the language into bytecode. If we have control of a
> > AVM-targeting compiler, then we are free to define the specification of
> the
> > language that it compiles.
> >
> > So presumably if we want to extend AS3 (with user-defined generics for
> > example), then we'll have to rename the language to ApacheFlexScript or
> some
> > such?
> I would want changes to the language to be called something else.  Wouldn't
> you recommend the same if you modified a Java compiler to handle different
> langage constructs?  You can't go to an AS3 reference and find those new
> things.
> >
> >> IMHO, language evolution is not within the domain of responsibility of
> > this project.
> > I completely disagree. We now have an excellent opportunity to enable the
> > community to dictate the future of the language, based on our needs,
> rather
> > than the business needs of Adobe. In fact in the future, should the
> > community choose to, we might even divorce the Flex from the Flash
> runtime,
> > at which point even the low level contraints of the AVM built-in classes
> > would be removed. Exciting times IMO. :)
> Yes, we can diverge from ActionScript, but we cannot change the definition
> of what ActionScript is, and we can't change the VM.  Also consider that
> Adobe has made no promises to fix issues in the VM caused by bytecode
> sequences not generated by Adobe compilers.  But I agree, it is exciting
> times.
>
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>
>

--20cf3074d2d62b5ad904b63e2adf--