incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roland Zwaga <rol...@stackandheap.com>
Subject Re: ActionScript and Apache Flex
Date Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:48:53 GMT
Hi David,

I also seem to recall from some tweets that HaXe doesn't have support for
libraries, right?
So if you want to include third-party code, your only option is to include
the sources.
Or did I understand this wrong?

cheers,

Roland

On 13 January 2012 11:14, David Arno <david@davidarno.org> wrote:

> --Original Message-----
> > From: Tink [mailto:flex@tink.ws ]
> > Sent: 12 January 2012 19:12
> >
> > This could be a crazy idea, but how about us moving to Haxe?
> > This has an active OS community, compiles to multiple platforms already
> meaning
> > that Flex wouldn't be dependent on Adobe anymore.
>
> I looked into this before Christmas; I even spent time trying to improve
> existing AS3 -> haXe tools so that they could "compile" the existing Flex
> source. I did so as haXe already has support for compiling to JavaScript,
> in
> many ways it's a better language and it's compiler is fast. However my
> conclusions were that it would be a bad idea overall.
>
> The advantages that haXe could bring us (better language; faster
> compilation) are now things we can add to the Falcon compiler when we get
> our hands on it. I think it would look odd to the wider community if we
> walked away from our own compiler (and Flex's current language) to adopt a
> relatively unknown language. Further, haXe doesn't support custom
> namespaces, private or internal (its private keyword is the equivalent of
> AS3's protected.) It doesn't support E4X notation. It doesn't have a base
> Object type. It has block scope on variables when AS3 doesn't. It has the
> weirdest way of doing getters & setters that I've ever seen (some folk love
> them; I personally hate them.) Last, but by no means least, haXe doesn't
> have a mxml equivalent. Converting the Flex source to haXe would not be a
> trivial task.
>
> I think the idea was worth exploring as it's not as crazy an idea as some
> might think. However, having looked into it, I decided it wasn't really as
> attractive an idea as I'd hoped.
>
> David.
>
>


-- 
regards,
Roland

-- 
Roland Zwaga
Senior Consultant | Stack & Heap BVBA

+32 (0)486 16 12 62 | roland@stackandheap.com | http://www.stackandheap.com

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