flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Schmalle <teotigraphix...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [FalconJX] FlexJS as to js work
Date Wed, 03 Jun 2015 15:37:23 GMT
I am just being devils advocate with my own mind.

I really don't have interest in talking about language features. :)

You have to realize, from my end, it's a black box with "all these
companies". I mean I only have so much time and there is a fine line that I
can give of my time for free to let others make money migrating things.

I like working with compilers, that is obvious but then again, in about 2
months my life is going to change because I am going out on Android with a
bunch of applications I will have to support. With that, I don't want to
create to many fires that I might now be able to stoke.

I never even really made money from app dev, all my income came from
selling UI components. So I was never in the industry of maintaining a
large code base.

You probably can see I am wrestling with myself of how far I can go with
helping, since I still don't have something in the next 4 months based of
this work that would translate to something else, like food. :)

Anyway, it's more just me trying no to bite of to much. There is a lot of
work to get the existing as -> js working in FlexJS and all the other stuff
that needs to be done for something like Josh's idea.


On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:

> On 6/3/15, 8:04 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <teotigraphixllc@gmail.com> wrote:
> >No I just meant there will never be an AS4.(generics, first class
> >metadata,
> >method overloading types, things other languages are getting, just look at
> >Java8). They kewn they had to give an option of lambda functions because
> >sometimes Java is just to verbose to do simple things, AS3 can be looked
> >at
> >that way with some things as well(compared to rapid fire javascript).
> IMO, AS4 was a whole new language.  I might be missing something, but
> every time I see “let” I think back to BASIC, not forward.
> If you think FlexJS needs generics and method overloading to even have a
> chance, well, then if you are right then the uphill is very steep, but I
> don’t think that is the case.  And if FlexJS can be come popular without
> these things, then folks with skills will show up to help make it happen
> unless their implementation is somehow blocked by the VM’s verifier, and
> that’s only true if folks require the SWF verification step.  Right now,
> everyone writing JS apps is living with compile-time verification, why
> can’t we at least to the same?
> We don’t need to store metadata in a trait.  If we can stick it on the JS
> class, we can stick it on an AS class.
> C++ (at least, the MS compiler several years ago) used decorated names for
> method overloading.  I keep thinking that should work for AS as well until
> you start calling things with [bracket] syntax.  But maybe that is good
> enough.
> Feel free to fork threads to discuss implementation pros and cons on AS
> language enhancements.
> And as I said elsewhere, the big money for FlexJS may be in the migration
> of existing code bases.  Even if we never get as big as TS, there seems to
> be enough existing AS code bases to keep our committers nice and busy
> helping folks migrate off of Flash until we’re old and gray (oh, wait, I’m
> sort of old and gray already).
> -Alex

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