flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl>
Subject Re: FalconJS has landed
Date Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:48:41 GMT

FYI, I'm working on an POC for using a Module Pattern combined with
Google Closure annotations to get a Javascript class as close to AS3
as I can get it. This might serve as a starting point for defining the
FalconJS output.


On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
> On 11/24/12 3:42 PM, "Daniel Wasilewski" <devudesign@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And here is a little example of
>> the very nature of this problem:
>> http://jsperf.com/object-create-with-object-literal-vs-prototype
> I must be missing something, but I don't see where the output code calls
> Object.create().
>> We don't know what future will bring, maybe they will go crazy and
>> built-in jQuery interpreter in their browsers, or do more crazy things...
>> I am not saying that current output is wrong, but did you consider
>> different styles?
> This is not my code or Gordon's.  Another engineer on another team put this
> together very quickly.  I just made it appear to work before donation.  We
> have no way of knowing what he did or did not consider, all we know is what
> is in the code that was donated.
>> Or at least have a choice to spit out a code in the
>> way you can configure, specify some rules of AST?.
> I think you can change the code there, but I don't see any config options
> other than it appears to be able to hook into Jquery.
>> Take a look at HaXe
>> output for instance.
>> I don't care if the output code is ugly and messy. What I do care about,
>> is that this very code is the best performer. I am writing AS3/Flex code
>> for clarity and speed of production, and what I expect is the best
>> performance on the other side. No more slow downs and bloated stuff.
>> Because it will only tell people, pick one of the native JS framework if
>> you need to develop RIA application for HTML5. The last thing Flex need
>> is reputation of over-bloated stuff on the future platform of the web.
>> Do this the best way, or do this well enough otherwise don't do it at all.
> Well, that is all in our control now.  I will say that there is a good
> chance that the final output won't be the absolute fastest as we are
> translating from AS to JS so there is likely to be some impedance mismatch
> there.
> For example, it appears that the current code has chosen a fancier
> inheritance scheme than the bare bones object.prototype pattern, potentially
> to allow for class reflection kinds of stuff.  I'm not sure how much this
> costs us and whether we truly have to have it.
> I also noted the output code calls newObject in certain cases.  I'm not sure
> if that is done for object pooling or memory management or for some other
> reason.  The adobe.js file I checked in was written by me and only has
> enough code in it to make my demo run.  I have no idea how much other
> infrastructure was actually behind those calls.
>>>> 2. adobe.extend / adobe.classes? shouldn't be apache?
>>> Well, it shouldn't be "adobe", but I'm not sure what we should change it to.
>> If apache sounds too general maybe just flex? Keep in mind that
>> apache.flex.classes will destroy performance a bit, yeap that's what JS
>> is about, shallow water ;)
> I left it as "adobe" until we argue over what to call it and make a
> decision.
>> Dan
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui

Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl

View raw message