incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joan Llenas Masó <j...@garnetworks.com>
Subject Re: Current compiler question
Date Sun, 18 Nov 2012 16:47:47 GMT
Michael, (nothing to do with last discussion).
It's obvious that you have knowledge about the compiler so let me ask you
some things...
Aside from what's here (
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/Falcon+Overview ) what
would you recommend to someone who is curious about the compiler
architecture? (thinking on the possibility of future contributions)
i.e.
Is the compiler built on top of another technology (aside from Java,
obviously) that I'd have to learn about?
Is Eclipse knowledge required (when you are not interested in the Eclipse
plugin)?
Any known design patterns (compiler specific) that should be known prior to
start looking at the compiler code / documentation?
Is the compiler 100% Java based or we need some C / C++ knowledge?

Thank you in advanced!

Cheers



On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Michael Schmalle
<apache@teotigraphix.com>wrote:

> I don't quite understand what you are saying but, I have said 100 times I
> do not like the Flash Player in many threads, read it on my blog etc.
>
> What I said below means, I would bet on AS3 language for the time being
> NOT the SWF format. The compilers are lexers/parsers first and parse AS3,
> MXML and CSS into AST which from there we can do anything with, the ABC
> bytecode emitter is at the end of the chain and has nothing to do with what
> I want to fiddle with.
>
> So please do not think I want anything to do with the current or future
> Flash Player AVM, I don't.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> Quoting Stefan Horochovec <stefan.horochovec@gmail.com>:
>
>  I think a little differently, the only answer we have now is that we move
>> from dependence on runtime from Adobe. This lack of information and
>> changing business plans involving the VM is terrible for the future of
>> Apache Flex.
>>
>> Or are we an independent solution for RIA development, or we will live
>> forever in this situation.
>>
>> For me it is completely impractical to bet on a framework based on a VM
>> that who develops the framework, completely unaware of his future runtime.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Stefan Horochovec
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/11/17 Hordur Thordarson <hordur@lausn.is>
>>
>>  > The last two days proves that know one has any real answers to anything
>>> right now. The only way to get answers is the scientific method of limit
>>> your variables and test the crap out the ideas.
>>>
>>> Well said, I totally agree with this :-)
>>>
>>> On 17.11.2012, at 19:00, Michael Schmalle wrote:
>>>
>>> > Before I commit to anything that is in Haxe land or total rewriting
>>> etc,
>>> I am going to experiment with FalconAS, FalconJS and the MXML compiler
>>> for
>>> fun.
>>> >
>>> > To me as you just said, experimenting at the moment with something we
>>> have is going to be an experiment for me. Unless some chariot flies from
>>> the sky and lifts Apache Flex into the heavens, I think there is just
>>> going
>>> to be a lot of experimenting with all angles until some one starts
>>> actually
>>> making progress on something.
>>> >
>>> > The last two days proves that know one has any real answers to anything
>>> right now. The only way to get answers is the scientific method of limit
>>> your variables and test the crap out the ideas.
>>> >
>>> > Mike
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Quoting Erik de Bruin <erik@ixsoftware.nl>:
>>> >
>>> >> I understand and I agree. I was just reacting to an email by Gordon
>>> >> explaining that MXML 'coverage' in Falcon is at 80%, but that the last
>>> 20%
>>> >> will take many man-months to finish, something Gordon on his own is
>>> >> obviously not capable of contributing. And then there's FalconJS,
>>> which
>>> >> from the few things I was able to find with a little help from Google,
>>> is
>>> >> awesome, but only a research project. That means that it has the
>>> promise to
>>> >> be great, but also that it will require a lot of work to get done.
>>> >>
>>> >> Now, I'm not (very) impatient, so if you can only get into details
>>> after
>>> >> the donation clears, I understand, but meanwhile the conversation seem
>>> to
>>> >> be about re-writing this and using that, anything but what we actually
>>> have
>>> >> available at the moment. I was looking at our resources and thinking
>>> about
>>> >> alternatives… and thought we should consider this as an option, or
at
>>> least
>>> >> discuss using what we have and know to work.
>>> >>
>>> >> EdB
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com>
wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 11/17/12 4:47 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <erik@ixsoftware.nl>
wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> > As a complete compiler noob, but can somebody answer this:
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > Can we not build a 'mxmlcJS'? I understand that Falcon was
>>> specifically
>>> >>> > designed to have a 'variable backend' that allows for FalconJS
to
>>> be
>>> >>> hooked
>>> >>> > in. Is something like that feasible with the 'previous generation'
>>> >>> > compiler(s)?
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > The advantage would be that we have a fully fledged MXML/AS
>>> compiler
>>> that
>>> >>> > works with the current framework, so no need to rewrite the
>>> framework,
>>> >>> nor
>>> >>> > invest heavily in finishing the remaining 20% of the Falcon
MXML
>>> parsing
>>> >>> > and finish FalconJS. We would 'only' have to rewrite the part
of
>>> the
>>> >>> > compiler that currently outputs 'abc' and the browser side
player
>>> >>> > (HTML/CSS/JS) :-)
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > Thoughts?
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> In theory, Falcon should also be faster.  And, IMO, the code is
>>> cleaner and
>>> >>> has fewer SDK dependencies which will be to our advantage when trying
>>> to
>>> >>> get
>>> >>> to other targets.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> -
>>> >>> Alex Harui
>>> >>> Flex SDK Team
>>> >>> Adobe Systems, Inc.
>>> >>> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Ix Multimedia Software
>>> >>
>>> >> Jan Luykenstraat 27
>>> >> 3521 VB Utrecht
>>> >>
>>> >> T. 06-51952295
>>> >> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
>>> > http://www.teotigraphix.com
>>> > http://blog.teotigraphix.com
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
> http://www.teotigraphix.com
> http://blog.teotigraphix.com
>
>

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