flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Roland Cabresos <j.cabre...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Language features
Date Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:25:24 GMT
Oh,  what the hell I'm typing, I'm typing drunk... Let me rephrase what I
just said earlier:

Flex currently, already has it's own language features that exist in MXML
which came to be known to most people as Flex. I get to ask a lot of people
mostly web developers what they know about Flex and most people think Flex
is a different language/platform rather than an SDK or a framework for
Flash. I think this a common misconception going around the community of
web developers.. at least from where am at. I don't have the numbers but on
my end that's how I see it. Thinking of this misconception going around,
sticking with Flex as a name for an Actionscript version with added
features would be great.

Flex is already halfway to become a full programming language of it's own
with it's own markup language based on XML, adding features on top of
Actionscript is going all the way.



On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:11 PM, James Roland Cabresos
<j.cabresos@gmail.com>wrote:

> Flex currently, already has it's own language features that exist in MXML.
> This came to be known to most people as Flex. I get ask around a lot and
> most people think Flex is a language rather than an SDK or a framework for
> Actionscript. If you're going to think of a name, I think sticking with
> Flex as the name for AS with new language features. Flex built a markup
> language base on XML, why not do the same thing with actionscript?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Roland Zwaga <roland@stackandheap.com>wrote:
>
>> by the way, with all this type of language features, it'll be interesting
>> to see
>> what Adobe is going to with ASC2.0 on their end.
>> They reported here on the list that they'd be developing ASC separately
>> since
>> it would focus on AS.Next. But with their last announcement they have
>> indicated
>> that the AVM2 will remain their focus. Which means AS3 as well, I suppose.
>> So, as we are adding language features, does that mean there is going to
>> be
>> two versions of AS3? Apache AS3 and Adobe AS3?
>>
>> So, when we do add features, should we make an official name change to the
>> language?
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> On 5 February 2013 05:22, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <nicholas@spoon.as> wrote:
>>
>> > I was under the impression that they updated the AMF protocol to support
>> > Vector...  I'm not remembering /where/ I read that, but I remember them
>> > saying it was coming...
>> >
>> > -Nick
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Tianzhen Lin <tangent@usa.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Besides strongly-typed dictionary, adding generic support would bring
>> the
>> > > language to a more reusable state, so we can say good-bye to
>> > > ArrayCollection, but List<MyType>.
>> > >
>> > > Additionally, if the AMF also supports generics, that would complete
>> the
>> > > whole picture.  Currently Vector is not supported in AMF, making it
>> > > inconvenient to pass through the wire.
>> > >
>> > > Tangent
>> > >
>> > > http://tangentlin.wordpress.com/
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.com]
>> > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 12:50 PM
>> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > > Subject: Re: Language features
>> > >
>> > > Btw, maybe strongly-typed Dictionary as well :)
>> > >
>> > > -Fred
>> > >
>> > > -----Message d'origine-----
>> > > From: Frédéric THOMAS
>> > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:05 PM
>> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > > Subject: Re: Language features
>> > >
>> > > Hi Gordon,
>> > >
>> > > > Adding abstract classes and private constructors to Falcon should
be
>> > > > easy
>> > >
>> > > That's a good news, at this point protected constructor would be
>> welcomed
>> > > as well as private constructors are commonly used in classes that
>> contain
>> > > static members only.
>> > >
>> > > And I voting +1 for the rest :-) you gonna make happy a lot of people
>> who
>> > > wait for a long time for these features.
>> > >
>> > > -Fred
>> > >
>> > > -----Message d'origine-----
>> > > From: Gordon Smith
>> > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 7:38 PM
>> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > > Subject: RE: Language features
>> > >
>> > > Adding abstract classes and private constructors to Falcon should be
>> > easy.
>> > > Adding generics and method overloading would be considerably harder
>> but
>> > > probably doable after a lot of design. Two other features worth
>> > considering
>> > > are strong function types (i.e., a type like (int, int):String for a
>> > > function that takes two ints and returns a String) and strongly-typed
>> > fixed
>> > > arrays (i.e., int[]).
>> > >
>> > > I'm going to continue to focus on MXML. Until it is finished, we can't
>> > > move from the old compiler to the new one. I don't recommend making
>> any
>> > > modifications to the old compiler.
>> > >
>> > > - Gordon
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.com]
>> > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 3:07 AM
>> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > > Subject: Re: Language features
>> > >
>> > > +1 Nick
>> > >
>> > > May be possible, I don't know, time ago, I looked at adding the
>> > > possibility to have the constructor accepting other NS than public to
>> > > simulate abstract classes and seen 2 places where it was checked but
>> > didn't
>> > > dare to change it besause I didn't know the impacts, I hope someone
>> > better
>> > > than me here can take care of it, compiler geeks, are you here ?
>> > >
>> > > -Fred
>> > >
>> > > -----Message d'origine-----
>> > > From: Nick Collins
>> > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 11:24 AM
>> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > > Subject: Language features
>> > >
>> > > With the cancellation of AVM next, should we perhaps look at adding
>> some
>> > > additional language features to our compiler?
>> > >
>> > > As I think about some of the features I would like to see, such as
>> > > abstract classes, generics, method overloading, etc. it seems to me
>> that
>> > at
>> > > least some of them could be implemented into our compiler?
>> > >
>> > > Nick
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> regards,
>> Roland
>>
>> --
>> Roland Zwaga
>> Senior Consultant | Stack & Heap BVBA
>>
>> +32 (0)486 16 12 62 | roland@stackandheap.com |
>> http://www.stackandheap.com
>>
>> http://zwaga.blogspot.com
>> http://www.springactionscript.org
>> http://www.as3commons.org
>>
>
>

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