incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ganaraj p r <>
Subject Re: [gosh] Compiler choice [was Goshawk language choices and more]
Date Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:20:07 GMT
Can someone get Nicolas Canasse to comment on the possibility of porting
Flex onto Haxe and why it hasnt been done before? What he thinks are the
pitfalls and stuff like that? Or does someone else have any deep insight
into this?

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:15 AM, David Arno <> wrote:

> > From: Left Right []
> > Sent: 20 February 2012 16:00
> >
> > Well, HaXe can use pre-compiled code, since maybe more then a year
> > ago I guess... It doesn't use SWC, but ans SWF as an input is OK.
> > Probably Niel can elaborate on that, or correct me if I'm wrong.
> Yeah sorry I wasn't very clear on that. The problem with viewing SWFs as a
> usable input source is that they are only of use when targeting SWFs. haXe
> doesn't have any target-agnostic library support.
> > I never found any practical use case that justified the use of internal
> or
> > custom namespaces ... I see the absence of E4X as a good thing ...
> Whether you, I or the framework use such features isn't the main issue
> though as far as I can see. Unless we are imagining we would port the
> framework to haXe, but then tell SDK users to carry on using AS3 and the
> mxmlc compiler, we have to allow for the fact that both features are used
> in
> the wider community. Therefore I think that until a way to seamlessly
> handle
> those features in haXe is devised, it will be a difficult sell to the wider
> community.
> > Why not use MXMLC? - obviously, Adobe aren't going to support it,
> > unless for maybe critical fixes, so if you are going to support it,
> > you are quite on your own with that.
> We will be on our own regardless of which compiler we choose, surely? The
> mxmlc compiler is far from perfect, but it exists and works already. My gut
> feeling is that you are right and that we should strive for something new
> rather than trying to improve it. I just worry we might have been too hasty
> in completely disregarding it.
> David.

Ganaraj P R

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