Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of carlos.rovira@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: carlos.rovira@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CCD281C0.48DEF%aharui@adobe.com>
References: <50AD3F51.1040607@unFocus.com>
	<CCD281C0.48DEF%aharui@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 22:59:13 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAMFKFRhwpRrpd1Mj-FDsokLfWz=scoGJCfNvEBTGqCGFZsB8dw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Flex 5 in haxe
From: Carlos Rovira <carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com>
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044287820c956204cf08768b

--f46d044287820c956204cf08768b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Alex,

I'm strong advocate to make POCs in different directions so we could end
getting more knowledge that could end turning all efforts in a real next
generation framework. For that reason I think we'll end over the next year
with various groups targeting different points of views: AS3, Haxe and so
on, as well maintaining actual codebase

For me, in a full rewrite, the reason not to go AS3 is:

* AS3 will be killed by its own evolution AS4
* AVM2 will be killed by its own evolution AVMNext
* If we could get rid off Adobe's technologies, the better. It's not only
because we, as an open source project, should not depend heavily on
propietary technologies (if we can), it's because we have the experience on
how Adobe throw the towel, and that makes a precedent, so they could make
it again. Confidence in a future depending on Adobe is something that I
would try to avoid if possible.
* Haxe has the key points we are asking for: One language (OOP) - multiple
targets.
* Haxe will serve us next AS4/AVMNext without the need of change the
language.
* They already has the HTML5/JS output, the actual Flash AVM output, and
all the mobile platforms output.

...of course all this have sense since the proposal is "a new Flex from
scratch".

Your point of "Haxe is not in Apache" is not a point for me. Take into
account that we already use other open source projects that are not in
apache. More over, Apache is an instrument right now and even for such new
project, we could event think in go directly to Github, if after a few more
trys we don't get git-github support or Apache bureaucracy is not as agile
as we need.

I'm with you that we should start coding and making more POC and not only
talking, but In my case my next efforts as you saw will be in Git support,
and need to learn more about Haxe to be able to start playing with all this
ideas.


2012/11/21 Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com>

>
>
>
> On 11/21/12 12:53 PM, "Kevin Newman" <CaptainN@unFocus.com> wrote:
>
> > But if we are to change languages, why not go with a language that,
> > looks a lot like AS3 (and ports easy), addresses the language
> > scalability issues of JavaScript (lack of classes, typing, a compiler,
> > etc.), and can compile to JS as well as other languages? Haxe can be
> > compiled into JS, ABC/SWF, C++, C#, etc.
> My angle for now is not to change languages.  We can write in AS3 and
> cross-compile to JS and maybe other languages.  Apache Flex effectively
> owns
> AS3 because it owns a compiler for it.
>
> > Why NOT use Haxe?
> -Haxe is not in Apache.
> -There are lots of existing AS3 code libraries I think we should try to
> leverage.
> -I know how AS3 behaves on Flash.
>
> But again, none of these, even in aggregate, are strong enough reasons to
> a-priori say that some other group of folks shouldn't pursue a rewrite on
> Haxe.
>
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>
>


--=20
Carlos Rovira
Director de Tecnolog=EDa
M: +34 607 22 60 05
F:  +34 912 35 57 77
http://www.codeoscopic.com
http://www.directwriter.es
http://www.avant2.es

--f46d044287820c956204cf08768b--