incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Schmalle <apa...@teotigraphix.com>
Subject Re: [FalconJS] concepts
Date Wed, 28 Nov 2012 23:08:55 GMT
That being said.

I may be a complete idiot in thinking here but, why use a framework  
like jQuery if you have a framework in ActionScript.

Now let me finish my thought, I know we arn't talking about using  
jQuery but we do have the compiler that can do "majic" when  
transcoding. So I agree that isn't it the best for us as a group to  
figure out the bare bones fasted possible javascript implementation  
and bend the compiler to service the needs of the performat code path?

The compiler is just a tool, it doesn't care how it compiles as to js.

Pretty much what has been said in this thread is why I am still on  
this project. I don't even use ActionScript right now. But to think I  
could have a hand at helping an underdog take an implementation route  
that was not a "candy" route for gaining top followers is a great  
feeling. If this project gets started based on performance arguments  
it has a good chance at succeeding.

Mike


Quoting Daniel Wasilewski <devudesign@gmail.com>:

> Well,
>
> I feel like one, because only FalconJS subject activated me on this list :)
>
> And to eliminate the 'IF' from your conditional statement, just a quick one:
>
> http://jsperf.com/jqury-vs-plainjs
>
> Dan
>
> On 11/28/2012 10:26 PM, Michael Schmalle wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> Your not an outsider, everything I have read of yours is golden. At  
>> least you are trying to explain this stuff to people who don't have  
>> a lot of js experience.
>>
>> If what you are saying about jQuery and performance is true then;
>>
>> "I do believe that it is possible to make a easy to develop  
>> environment and spit out efficient code on the other side.
>> And not many ongoing development in this area has as much  
>> opportunity to get something done well as Apache has at the moment."
>>
>> I couldn't agree more. Sometimes being an infant has it's  
>> advantages in a new world because you don't have any bad habits yet!
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Quoting Daniel Wasilewski <devudesign@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> I can spare my free time on this, Possibly not on Apache  
>>> contributor level because I am total noob when comes to it. I  
>>> don't even managed to set up my environment for flexSDK ;) But  
>>> this is because I've got AIR corrupted and some windows x86  
>>> redistributable corupted libs blabla, the only reasonable solution  
>>> is to go for fresh Windows installation. Hell no...!! ;)
>>>
>>> I am not JS guru, but would like to get involved and do my best  
>>> even as outsider.
>>> I was digging into JS for past year just to investigate the  
>>> possibilities. Mostly from performance point of view and mobile  
>>> development.
>>>
>>>
>>> In regards to instanceof:
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is something that haxe is using
>>>
>>> js.Boot.__instanceof = function(o,cl) {
>>>    try {
>>>        if(o instanceof cl) {
>>>            if(cl == Array) return o.__enum__ == null;
>>>            return true;
>>>        }
>>>        if(js.Boot.__interfLoop(o.__class__,cl)) return true;
>>>    } catch( e ) {
>>>        if(cl == null) return false;
>>>    }
>>>    switch(cl) {
>>>    case Int:
>>>        return Math.ceil(o%2147483648.0) === o;
>>>    case Float:
>>>        return typeof(o) == "number";
>>>    case Bool:
>>>        return o === true || o === false;
>>>    case String:
>>>        return typeof(o) == "string";
>>>    case Dynamic:
>>>        return true;
>>>    default:
>>>        if(o == null) return false;
>>>        if(cl == Class && o.__name__ != null) return true; else null;
>>>        if(cl == Enum && o.__ename__ != null) return true; else null;
>>>        return o.__enum__ == cl;
>>>    }
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> having something like that implemented
>>>
>>> 'is' is as easy as:
>>>
>>> Std["is"] = function(v,t) {
>>>    return js.Boot.__instanceof(v,t);
>>> }
>>>
>>> But obviously, it needs to live within rest of the sugar :).
>>>
>>> Are you able to provide the list of stuff/fields that compiler is  
>>> expecting to meet on the other side?
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/28/2012 9:42 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/28/12 1:35 PM, "Daniel Wasilewski" <devudesign@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, please tell me why not to go the classic route as a very  
>>>>> little overhaul
>>>>> for the application that can be built on top of AS3/Flex?
>>>>> This is bloody 3 classes with 4 methods in it, and we are not  
>>>>> talking here
>>>>> about few % but tens.
>>>>> It can only grow exponentially to the scale of your project.
>>>> I don't know enough to have an reason not to go the classic route.  But
>>>> someone else will have to step up to do the work.
>>>>
>>>> That said, because we are cross compiling AS, does the classic  
>>>> route support
>>>> as many features of AS, especially the reflection-oriented features?  We
>>>> want to try to compile business logic untouched and it might be  
>>>> using "is",
>>>> "in", "instanceof", etc.  Resig's blog seems to indicate that support for
>>>> instanceOf was important and required all of that code.
>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
http://www.teotigraphix.com
http://blog.teotigraphix.com


Mime
View raw message