incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Heidegger ...@leichtgewicht.at>
Subject Re: Flex adopting haXe ?
Date Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:31:10 GMT
Thanks for explaining that, Gordon. I guess everybody wonders why the 
compiler doesn't make use of those opcodes in the the other syntax.

yours
Martin.


On 23/02/2012 03:25, Gordon Smith wrote:
> Flash Player has special newarray and newobject bytecodes that are used for array literals
like [ 1, 2, 3 ] and object literals like { a: 1, b: 2, c: 3 } and are faster than a generic
constructor call. That's why the coding guidelines for Flex recommend using the literal syntax
rather than new Array() or new Object().
>
> - Gordon Smith, Falcon team, Adobe
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roland Zwaga [mailto:roland@stackandheap.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 7:29 AM
> To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Flex adopting haXe ?
>
>>> From: Martin Heidegger [mailto:mh@leichtgewicht.at]
>>> Sent: 22 February 2012 15:18
>>> Also another thing is that
>>>
>>> if(a == null) is slower than if(a) .... at least compiled with mxmlc.
>> Is it really? I didn't know that.
>>
>> Writing code that enables a cast + comparison to happen quicker than a
>> direct comparison takes some doing! :/
>
> I'm hoping that Falcon wil emit some more sane opcodes as well.
> Actionscript is rife with such weird performance behaviors.
>
> Apparently this:
> var array:Array = [];
> is faster than:
> var array:Array = new Array();
>
> There's plenty more examples like that...
>
>


Mime
View raw message