flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Frank Wienberg <fr...@jangaroo.net>
Subject Re: [FalconJS] concepts
Date Thu, 29 Nov 2012 00:29:58 GMT
Totally agreed, Mike! We're facing a great opportunity, but also a big
Adobe's code is, especially considering the lack of a language
specification, the best you can get to parse ActionScript 3. However, when
we (especially Andreas Gawecki, the original author of the Jangaroo
compiler) looked at the Flex compiler code, we found it quite complex and
wondered why no grammer / parser generator had been used. It all seems
hand-coded. So we decided to stick with our compiler, at least for a while.
Also, we did not want to emulate SWF / SWC, but rely on generated JS code +
AS3 API stubs. All relevant tools can handle that very well: we use ASDoc
and IntelliJ IDEA's ActionScript support successfully. We only had to
create Jangaroo-specific build-tool support, namely a Maven plugin.
So both compilers have their advantages, and we would like to unite them,
but that seems like a long way to go.
Can somebody explain why it is not easy or even not possible to use Falcon
to create the AST and refactor the Jangaroo JSCodeGenerator from the
Jangaroo-AST to the Falcon-AST to produce the JS output? I don't really get
the SWF/JBurg part...
One thing that's good in FalconJS and missing in Jangaroo is to produce
output that Google Closure Compiler can optimize well. I think it should
not be too hard, but it seems to conflict with Jangaroo's goal to keep the
output format as close as possible to the AS source code, and of course it
has to be done.


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