Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3C019DCCD for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:11:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 95651 invoked by uid 500); 30 Aug 2012 21:11:44 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 95616 invoked by uid 500); 30 Aug 2012 21:11:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 95605 invoked by uid 99); 30 Aug 2012 21:11:44 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:11:44 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of aharui@adobe.com designates 64.18.1.37 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.18.1.37] (HELO exprod6og116.obsmtp.com) (64.18.1.37) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:11:34 +0000 Received: from outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com ([192.150.11.134]) by exprod6ob116.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUD/W8cJoZGIjFjjHXBP3HpiBfULDm9TQ@postini.com; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:11:13 PDT Received: from inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (inner-relay-4.adobe.com [193.104.215.14]) by outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id q7UL8dk0001416 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nahub01.corp.adobe.com (nahub01.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.97]) by inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id q7UL4OZc014961 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:11:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAMBX02.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.127.96]) by nahub01.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.97]) with mapi; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:09:17 -0700 From: Alex Harui To: "flex-dev@incubator.apache.org" Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:09:14 -0700 Subject: Re: Cross-compiling Flex to HTML5/Javascript (Was : Update on Falcon donation) Thread-Topic: Cross-compiling Flex to HTML5/Javascript (Was : Update on Falcon donation) Thread-Index: Ac2G70xqhxfgkM78QgKFYdIcmUYBuQABGjab Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/13.11.0.110726 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 On 8/30/12 1:36 PM, "jude" wrote: > To *guarantee* we get the same results across browsers we need to use > something like the drawing canvas or SVG (or drawing commands) such as > Flash uses itself REGARDLESS of performance. If we depend on browser > manufacturers for different feature sets or API's we will be waiting a lo= ng > time. Architecture IMHO is more important than speed because in time CPU > and GPU performance will increase, in time bandwidth will increase and > software performance will increase. That's an interesting point: I would say targeting HTML(5) can be successful without guaranteeing same results across browsers. It might be = a formidable amount of work to try to guarantee results given that the browse= r manufacturers themselves don't care and have successfully pushed that task on the developers. >=20 > Remember when iOS 5 came out a year or so ago? The HTML5 performance in > that browser was 2FPS. After that update it was 35-40FPS. A 2000% increas= e. > [1] Yes, things get faster, but I would say that performance has been an issue for Flex for its entire lifetime, and faster devices have not alleviated th= e problem. If Flex 1.0 had gone for a cleaner architecture, it isn't clear i= t would have been successful enough to end up here in Apache. >=20 --=20 Alex Harui Flex SDK Team Adobe Systems, Inc. http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui