incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alain Ekambi <jazzmatad...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Cross-compiling Flex to HTML5/Javascript (Was : Update on Falcon donation)
Date Wed, 29 Aug 2012 22:59:18 GMT
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
>

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