incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl>
Subject Re: [FalconJx] Prototype ActionScript -> JavaScript compiler code up in svn
Date Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:24:24 GMT
Dude,

"goog" it is.

I just needed a little pep-talk, I guess ;-)

EdB



On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Michael Schmalle
<apache@teotigraphix.com> wrote:
> 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 <erik@ixsoftware.nl>:
>
>> 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 <erik@ixsoftware.nl> 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 <frank@jangaroo.net>
>>> 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
>>>> <apache@teotigraphix.com>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 by 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 am not
>>>>> targeting SWF what so ever.
>>>>>
>>>>> I tried to stick with the same base implementation so we kept the
>>>>> 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 a positive
>>>>> thing. I also don't like mixing design specific things in the base
>>>>> traversing class, another reason why I want an abstract base or 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 <aharui@adobe.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>  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" <apache@teotigraphix.com>
>>>>>> 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 and
test
>>>>>>> project, just like the rest of Falcon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm working on more documentation. A thing to note about the
code, my
>>>>>>> goal is to product ActionScript first, I will explain my thinking
>>>>>>> later but, since I'm the one putting this together, that is what
I
>>>>>>> decided was best for testing first. Once we get all ActionScript
>>>>>>> generating, we start overriding things for JavaScript specific
>>>>>>> implementations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Source [0]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right now I have 103 unit tests ALL passing for expressions and
>>>>>>> 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] https://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/incubator/flex/whiteboard/**
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mschmalle/<https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/flex/whiteboard/mschmalle/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Alex Harui
>>>>>> Flex SDK Team
>>>>>> Adobe Systems, Inc.
>>>>>> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
>>>>> http://www.teotigraphix.com
>>>>> http://blog.teotigraphix.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ix Multimedia Software
>>>
>>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
>>> 3521 VB Utrecht
>>>
>>> T. 06-51952295
>>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>



--
Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl

Mime
View raw message