incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Wasilewski <>
Subject Re: [FalconJx] Prototype ActionScript -> JavaScript compiler code up in svn
Date Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:23:20 GMT
I am with you Mike on this in 100%.

If I can add something to it.

I would rather thing of Falcon/ FalconJS being contributed to Apache as 
just a cool name. Code base? Does anybody do care these days of quality 
of it?
If possible to investigate a better way of doing it, why not?

Equation was always like  Adobe != Quality-of-code, They've been always 
trying to get stuff done quickly and monetise it. I don't expect 
anything more from them.
This is a corporation not quality control or W3C guardians. You have 
opportunity to see how Flex source looks like on your own eyes.

I had no plans from very beginning to contribute to Flex itself because 
I am against of the framework that over the time contributed heavily to 
the bad reputation of Action Script itself. Encouraged developers to 
build on top of it and act in Adobe Corp style. Get it done, monetise.

Problem is, when comes to HTML5 Adobe is no longer in control of their 
runtime. You facing much wider competition and trust me, there is plenty 
of solutions out there trying to do the same thing from several years. 
My favourite language-> JS/HTML5. We all know that Flex has been 
designed by Adobe to attract many developers from different platforms.

Why would I use Flex->JS if can take C++,C#,Java,Python,whatever ->JS?

The only way to make it happen is*not**only* to give you ability to 
translate from one language to another, but offer RIA platform, reuse 
existing code base, don't dump the years of work, experience and effort. 
And make it *competitive*. If some day you will hear, that people using 
Flex because HTML5 applications it produces are robust, snappier and 
well performing it is the only reason why this whole project is worth 
it. Otherwise if you just having plans to get something done, you better 
put your energy into something else. Some may be short sighted here but 
this very part FalconJS, that many considering as little subset for now, 
is something that may even keep the Flex project alive in near future.

And just happened that here is few people capable of making it happen, I 
would love to see them working together with the same goals.


On 12/14/2012 10:48 AM, Michael Schmalle wrote:
> Hey,
> This is great to hear. I'm kind of a hard head myself. What we are 
> doing is going against what the majority says is possible.
> I see petitions to kill the Flash Player, uninstall it from your 
> browser stuff... You get where I am going with this?
> Ignorant developers associate ActionScript3 with the Flash Player and 
> not with a very mature OOP language. With the new Falcon compiler we 
> have a very powerful tool to transform ActionScript into something it 
> has never been before, Flash Player independent. This is my vision.
> It just so happens that ActionScript and JavaScript share a lot of the 
> same semantics on the AST level so we have a natural fit.
> Erik, we need people to bridge the language gap between AS and JS. You 
> are acting as the translator right now. I know you are not going to 
> get every translation correct in the start, but you need to realize 
> this is going to take a few running starts to jump the divide!
> To others, I am pretty satisfied with my prototype being a viable 
> solution to cross compile. That being said, I HAVE NO plans to work on 
> the older FalconJS code, its just to much of a rats nest and Adobe 
> left a 1/3 of code in there that has no relevance to our project.
> So in my pessimistic voice, if I can't get this prototype to 
> eventually spit out what we need, that will be it for me. :) But, 103 
> granular unit tests prove I am on my way to succeeding with this design.
> Mike
> Quoting Chema Balsas <>:
>> Hi Erik, I'm with Mike on this one. Lead and others will follow.
>> I for one plan to stick around the compiler and mostly the JS 
>> generation.
>> I've still to find the time to dive deep into your approach, but I'll be
>> working on it for sure. You can definitely count me in.
>> Cheers,
>> Chema
>> 2012/12/14 Michael Schmalle <>
>>> Erik,
>>>  So, unless there's people out there that are willing to
>>>> contribute to Alex's (and now my) approach to getting from AS to JS,
>>>> my time is spend better helping out on another part of the project.
>>> Saying this kindof pisses me off. I just spent the last week writing a
>>> compiler that will allow us to do any type of cross compile we want.
>>> Dude, you gotta stick to your guns man! If what you decided on for the
>>> time being is goog, the use it! Frank can have his opinion but, you are
>>> doing something and that means you need answers which you sought out.
>>> If you research me a bit, I was a component developer since 2003. To 
>>> say
>>> you will not get help with the component framework is bs. I'm right 
>>> here,
>>> really how many people does it take to make something in the world. 
>>> Right
>>> mow a bunch of people would muddle stuff up.
>>> I remember spouting the same crap back in January when I left the 
>>> project
>>> for 8 months this year. What I realized is if there was one thing I 
>>> wanted
>>> to do, it's allow AS3 to run on something other than the Flash 
>>> Player. This
>>> is my main goal, why? I have no freaking reason other than I have to 
>>> much
>>> experience in AS3 and the like to throw it away for some "new" 
>>> language,
>>> blah blah.
>>> What I am trying to do here is make the lower level. You cannot 
>>> expect a
>>> lot of people to help out here, they just don't have a clue what is 
>>> going
>>> on. Your a leader, lead my friend and keep going, I will join up 
>>> when I get
>>> the compiler working correctly in the prototype.
>>> Mike
>>> Quoting Erik de Bruin <>:
>>>  I'm not sitting here feeling sorry for myself, I actually learned a
>>>> lot setting up the current approach. I'm just wondering if it is worth
>>>> my time to pursue this avenue when everyone else seems more interested
>>>> in going in a (as far as I understand) completely different direction.
>>>> Getting this "done" is a major project which I cannot get done on my
>>>> own. So, unless there's people out there that are willing to
>>>> contribute to Alex's (and now my) approach to getting from AS to JS,
>>>> my time is spend better helping out on another part of the project.
>>>> EdB
>>>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Erik de Bruin <>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> So, basically, nobody loves the "goog" approach I spend the last 
>>>>> weeks
>>>>> working on (based mostly on feedback from the various discussion on
>>>>> the list).
>>>>> Or, let me rephrase, nobody cares enough to contribute to it?
>>>>> EdB
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Frank Wienberg <>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> This is great news, Mike! I will also try to dig into your code this
>>>>>> weekend.
>>>>>> In the meantime, I've been busy figuring out the "essence" of a new
>>>>>> JavaScript runtime format that uses the principles described in 
>>>>>> my blog,
>>>>>> but relies on RequireJS (not goog!) and ECMAScript 5 API, making

>>>>>> it way
>>>>>> more concise than the current Jangaroo Runtime. For IE8 and other
>>>>>> non-ES5
>>>>>> browsers, we would then use polyfills for all ES5 functions used.
>>>>>> Let's see if I can get an approval from my company to contribute;

>>>>>> if it
>>>>>> takes too long, I'd blog about the concepts and you or someone else
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> have to implement them.
>>>>>> Greetings
>>>>>> -Frank-
>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Michael Schmalle
>>>>>> <>**wrote:
>>>>>>  Not really,
>>>>>>> I rebuilt everything from scratch. Yes I copied about half the

>>>>>>> code in
>>>>>>> pieces. I purposely put it all back together myself so I knew

>>>>>>> what was
>>>>>>> going on. So every class in the committed code was assembled
>>>>>>> me, to
>>>>>>> figure out it's function if relevant to the new design.
>>>>>>> Besides most of it had either be deleted of changed because I
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> targeting SWF what so ever.
>>>>>>> I tried to stick with the same base implementation so we kept
>>>>>>> multi-threaded Falcon parsing.
>>>>>>> Take a look at the org.apache.flex.compiler.****internal.js.codegen
>>>>>>> package.
>>>>>>> Specifically ASBlockWalker from that class alone you should see

>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> is a completely different implementation.
>>>>>>> A note to others looking at the code, in the ASBlockWalker I

>>>>>>> have mixed
>>>>>>> some javascript emitting specific to the closure compiler. I

>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>> this and have a base class not dependent on anything but to be

>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>> override it.
>>>>>>> Case in point, most expressions and statements map the same in

>>>>>>> AS to
>>>>>>> JS,
>>>>>>> so having a base implementation not tied to anything will be
>>>>>>> positive
>>>>>>> thing. I also don't like mixing design specific things in the
>>>>>>> traversing class, another reason why I want an abstract base
>>>>>>> two.
>>>>>>> Anyway, very prototype code and I reserve the right to yank things
>>>>>>> around.
>>>>>>> :) I just wanted to get it up to show others there might be an

>>>>>>> easier
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> more flexible way to get to where we need to go without the BURM.
>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>> Quoting Alex Harui <>:
>>>>>>>  I will try to look this weekend.
>>>>>>>> Can you briefly describe the important files to look at?
 Did you
>>>>>>>> copy the
>>>>>>>> FalconJS files then do most of your work in a few of them?
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>>>> On 12/13/12 3:37 PM, "Michael Schmalle" <>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>  Hi,
>>>>>>>>> Well, I spent the last 4 days working on this to where
it was
>>>>>>>>> something we all could start talking about.
>>>>>>>>> Is it viable?, I really think so. I have spent a lot
of time
>>>>>>>>> tinkering
>>>>>>>>> with the framework, take a look. It's in my whiteboard
for now 
>>>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>>>> 2
>>>>>>>>> Eclipse projects.
>>>>>>>>> I know there was just a discussion about .project files
but I
>>>>>>>>> committed the .project and .classpath for both application
>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>> project, just like the rest of Falcon.
>>>>>>>>> I'm working on more documentation. A thing to note about
>>>>>>>>> code, my
>>>>>>>>> goal is to product ActionScript first, I will explain
my thinking
>>>>>>>>> later but, since I'm the one putting this together, that
>>>>>>>>> what I
>>>>>>>>> decided was best for testing first. Once we get all ActionScript
>>>>>>>>> generating, we start overriding things for JavaScript
>>>>>>>>> implementations.
>>>>>>>>> Source [0]
>>>>>>>>> Right now I have 103 unit tests ALL passing for expressions
>>>>>>>>> statements. Its a good start.
>>>>>>>>> Note; I have not don't a build file, if anybody wants
to go 
>>>>>>>>> for it.
>>>>>>>>> Please, I hate them. :)
>>>>>>>>> Peace,
>>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>>> - [0]****asf/incubator/flex/**
>>>>>>>>> whiteboard/**<**asf/incubator/flex/whiteboard/**>

>>>>>>>>> mschmalle/<https://svn.apache.**org/repos/asf/incubator/flex/**
>>>>>>>>> whiteboard/mschmalle/<>

>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> Alex Harui
>>>>>>>> Flex SDK Team
>>>>>>>> Adobe Systems, Inc.
>>>>>>>>  --
>>>>>>> Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Ix Multimedia Software
>>>>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
>>>>> 3521 VB Utrecht
>>>>> T. 06-51952295
>>>>> I.
>>>> -- 
>>>> Ix Multimedia Software
>>>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
>>>> 3521 VB Utrecht
>>>> T. 06-51952295
>>>> I.
>>> -- 
>>> Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC

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