incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Wasilewski <devudes...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [FalconJx] New JavaScript runtime format prototype
Date Thu, 20 Dec 2012 22:12:14 GMT
Don't get me wrong, I am asking about how 'goog' or vanilla and your 
approach solition performs on various browsers.

You keep saying, for debugging reasons, your goal is to mimic as3 vs JS 
output into even exact line of code.

We are about to get compiler that can optimise everything before it will 
get translated to JS, we don't care about the output in terms of 
accuracy of representing input.
We do care about efficiency of how it performs and do, what input 
platform wants it to do without errors. Our debugger and protector 
should be the input platform.
We have a descent tools to make it happen these days. Even if my code 
needs to get over heavy lifting, closure compiler etc, I don't care.

JS  in many cases is faster that Flash Player these days. Sad, but true 
statement. I still believe is possible to translate AS3 into JS without 
loosing those benefits.
It is possible to write AS3 language like in pure Java script, not other 
way around. For this reason I cannot accept something that for sake of 
just accurate translation ruin performance.

If flex will not get to this point, better look at Haxe JS output. 
Because is the best performer for time being.

Dan

On 12/20/2012 9:55 PM, Frank Wienberg wrote:
> Er... I hope I already did. Did you read by previous post in this thread?
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Daniel Wasilewski <devudesign@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Please enlight us on why you think goog is not a good solution.


Mime
View raw message