incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Tsitlakidis <ni...@perfectedz.com>
Subject Re: Cross-compiling Flex to HTML5/Javascript (Was : Update on Falcon donation)
Date Wed, 29 Aug 2012 23:07:26 GMT
I meant I cant see the relevance of making open source the framework
regarding the comparison with how Flex could be cross-compiled to JS.

Since there is a core of developers in the community who would like to work
on this, discussing where Flex should be used in their topic is slightly
wrong.
My email was just a proposal for these guys to think of what GWT does so
that they can be "inspired".

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:59 AM, Alain Ekambi <jazzmatadazz@gmail.com>wrote:

> You dont see the relevance of Google making GWT opensource ?
>
> Use the right tool for the right job.
> Why use GWT for a small app ?
>
>
> This is the same for Flex. I see people using Flash/Flex where they should
> not then complain about performance.
>
> If you are not targeting AIR or the Desktop browser you should not even
> think about Flex/Flash as an option.
> That s the way  it is(for now).
>
> Now concerning  compiling Flex/AS3 to JS i m not a fan of that. There s
> nothing wrong with Flex as the way it is now. If i want to do mobile
> webapps Flex is def not the framework i will think about. Regardless of it
> it compiles to JS or not.
>
>
> 2012/8/30 Nick Tsitlakidis <nickt@perfectedz.com>
>
> > From my experience, using it for a simple site or a small app would
> > possibly create overbloated js indeed. But when it comes to middle or
> large
> > scale apps the code is heavily optimized and the end result makes sense
> in
> > terms of size and complexity.
> >
> > Regarding Google making the framework fully open source, that is correct,
> > but I fail to see the relevance. If anything, this is one more similarity
> > with Flex in Apache.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Carlos Rovira <
> > carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
> >
> > > AFAIK Google has made the same with GWT as Adobe with Flex. But GWT
> > > has the problem to generate overbloated JS code...
> > >
> > > 2012/8/30 Nick Tsitlakidis <nickt@perfectedz.com>:
> > > > Hello guys, I'm following all the topics here but I post rarely
> because
> > > > most of the times someone else has said something that I agree with
> > 100%.
> > > >
> > > > This time though, I was trying to think about similar technologies
> > which
> > > > are either compiled to js or they are converted in js in some other
> > way.
> > > > So I thought about GWT. The appproach google has taken with it is
> very
> > > > similar to Flex. They even have a skin architecture equivalent.
> > > > What I'm trying to say is, what if we could achieve something
> similar.
> > > They
> > > > seem to be translating Java to JS without a problem because they
> > exclude
> > > > Java features that are not compatible.
> > > > It's a small Java subset, I'll give you that, but developing in Java
> > and
> > > > creating skins just like in Flex is way more interesting and agile
> > > compared
> > > > to pure HTML and JS.
> > > >
> > > > As far as I can tell, both languages are not that different (Java and
> > > AS3).
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts on this?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Om <bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Michael A. Labriola <
> > > >> labriola@digitalprimates.net> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > >Can you please elaborate?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >The point I was trying to make was that HTML5 language itself
is
> > not
> > > >> > designed to be extensible.  Using Javascript does not really
count
> > (in
> > > >> this
> > > >> > >context)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >As far as using the DOM, I assume you mean the Microdata
format.
> > >  This
> > > >> > results in non-standard HTML most of the time and is not supported
> > > across
> > > >> > browsers.  And it deals more with extending data semantics and
> >not
> > > >> > functional extension.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > In flex, IMO, we worried too much about extension and not enough
> > about
> > > >> > composition.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I think that is besides the point.  There is nothing in MXML that
> > > prevents
> > > >> composition.  It is just that the current set of Flex components are
> > > built
> > > >> like that.  We can fix that given time and effort.  There is no need
> > to
> > > >> structurally modify MXML to achieve this.
> > > >>
> > > >> Whereas with HTML(5) there is nothing in the standard that will let
> us
> > > do
> > > >> specialization (via inheritance or composition)  I cannot dream up
> new
> > > >> elements and expect a browser to understand it out of the box.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> > So long as I have a good series of patterns (and the discipline
to
> > > follow
> > > >> > them) then I can look at the HTML DOM elements as the Atoms of
the
> > > >> universe
> > > >> > and assembly them with some bonds (JavaScript) to make an element.
> > And
> > > >> then
> > > >> > in turn assemble those to make any application.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> Right, we need Javascript to do this kind of extension to HTML.  To
> do
> > > this
> > > >> in the Flex world would mean that we either
> > > >>
> > > >> * Bring in JS as a language we support in Flex
> > > >> or
> > > >> * Keep Flex as it is (i.e. Actionscript based) and have a AS to JS
> > > >> translation layer.
> > > >>
> > > >> The latter is a better approach because of various reasons ranging
> > from
> > > JS
> > > >> not being a real OOP language, no package organization possible, etc
> > (we
> > > >> all know why AS is better than JS)
> > > >>
> > > >> I think being able to code in MXML and Actionscript would be a key
> > goal
> > > of
> > > >> this cross-compilation effort, right?  Unless we want to
> fundamentally
> > > >> change what 'Flex' means.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> > So, the key is not trying to extend the Atom but trying to
> assemble
> > > it in
> > > >> > useful ways and allow those to be extended or recomposed. So
far,
> I
> > > have
> > > >> > found few limitations of this approach and often times ended
up
> much
> > > >> > happier.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> I definitely agree with you on this.  But again, this requires
> > > Javascript
> > > >> to assemble things.  My above points still hold good as well.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> > Mike
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> Om
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Nick Tsitlakidis,
> > > >
> > > > CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD.
> > > > www.perfectedz.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > > Director de Tecnología
> > > M: +34 607 22 60 05
> > > F:  +34 912 35 57 77
> > > CODEOSCOPIC S.A.
> > > Avd. del General Perón, 32
> > > Planta 10, Puertas P-Q
> > > 28020 Madrid
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nick Tsitlakidis,
> >
> > CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD.
> > www.perfectedz.com
> >
>



-- 
Nick Tsitlakidis,

CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD.
www.perfectedz.com

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