flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: [FalconJX][FlexJS] Do we still want to use Google Closure Library? (was Re: [FalconJX] JXEmitter accessors)
Date Thu, 28 May 2015 19:08:00 GMT

On 5/28/15, 11:46 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <erik@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:

>> I think GCC does handle ES5.  And there is still active development on
>>  I’m definitely not a fan of their replacement of @expose with string
>> literals, but is there some other minifier we want to use instead?
>GCC handles ES5 just fine. Their implementation of the ES6 -> ES5/3
>transpilation is coming along nicely. No need for polyfills.
>'@expose' wasn't replaced by string literals, to be sure. If anything
>'replaced' it, it's a combination (either/or) of '@export' and
>'@nocollapse'. But there certainly are situations where string
>notation is easier - as it always was. And the benefit of deprecating
>'@expose' is that the GCC can much more effectively optimize and
>minimize the JS without it.

Interesting.  Lots of the advice I found suggested string literals.  How
are @expose and @export different such that it helps GCC?

>By the way, what do you plan to use instead of 'goog.inherit', and
>why? I'm sorry if I missed some of the discussion in the past few
>days... would you mind summarizing?

I think folks want to use Object.create and other Object methods.


View raw message