It probably does, since they are following the ECMA standard ATM. Would be nice though.
-Mark -----Original Message----- From: Avi Kessner [mailto:akess...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 1:22 AM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: RE: ActionScript 4? What the hell? Does function overloading require changes to the runtime? On Jan 22, 2014 9:30 PM, "Gordon Smith" <gosm...@adobe.com> wrote: > I looked over the spec to refresh my memory. In addition to user-defined > namespaces, other things that were dropped were E4X, undefined, prototypes, > and dynamic classes. Basically, AS4 became more like Java and less like > Javascript. Dropping any of these things would have a large impact on Flex. > But none of them have to be dropped. You could cherry-pick the additions > (as long as they are implementable on the existing runtime) rather than the > removals. > > - Gordon > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gordon Smith [mailto:gosm...@adobe.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:20 AM > To: dev@flex.apache.org > Subject: RE: ActionScript 4? What the hell? > > > the main thrust of the language was a totally new language geared for > functional programming, and then some backward compatibility stuff to make > it seem more like ActionScript. > > I wouldn't characterize it that way. To me it felt like incremental change > to AS3. There were still classes and interfaces so I'm not sure what you > mean by "geared for functional programming"; to me it was still definitely > an object-oriented language. It did add "strong function types"'; for > example > > var f:(int, int)=>String; > > declared a variable that could only contain a reference to a function that > took two ints and returned a String. It also added array types like > > var a:[]int; > > - Gordon > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:06 AM > To: dev@flex.apache.org > Subject: Re: ActionScript 4? What the hell? > > > > On 1/22/14 10:55 AM, "Gordon Smith" <gosm...@adobe.com> wrote: > > >Adobe designed AS4 to be the language for a new Flash runtime ("V12") > >that it was working on but dropped. (I was working on the AS4 compiler > >then.) Not all features of AS4 can be implemented -- at least not > >easily and efficiently -- on the existing Flash runtime. However, some > >features can be. > > > >Alex, I suggest that you try to arrange for the donation of the > >incomplete AS4 compiler to Apache for cherry-picking. > Well, donations take a lot of time and energy. I would rather we know > there is something we want and doesn't require runtime implementation > before expending that energy. > > I haven't looked at the AS4 docs, and Gordon certainly knows better, but > my takeaway from past discussions about AS4 was that it had dual > personalities: the main thrust of the language was a totally new language > geared for functional programming, and then some backward compatibility > stuff to make it seem more like ActionScript. Sure you could call that an > improvement, but I'm not clear it would be an incremental improvement. It > would be like rewriting the framework in Lisp. > > > > >- Gordon > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Kessler CTR Mark J [mailto:mark.kessler....@usmc.mil] > >Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 10:32 AM > >To: dev@flex.apache.org > >Subject: RE: ActionScript 4? What the hell? > > > > Well using the assumption that AS 4 would be an improvement in some > >area's from AS3 even if it was an incomplete work. While I haven't > >looked at it yet, I would be interested in just seeing the differences > >and bring over small pieces that could be an improvement for us. > >Assuming it wasn't in the same direction as ASC 2 which started getting > >rid of things we use. > > > >-Mark > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] > >Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 12:20 PM > >To: dev@flex.apache.org > >Subject: Re: ActionScript 4? What the hell? > > > >I'm not sure what the rules are. The language reference is under > >Apache license. The specifications are under CC-NC which is not good. > >I suppose I could try to get that changed. > > > >But first, come up with something you do want to cherry pick that > >doesn't require implementation in the runtime. > > > >-Alex > > > >On 1/22/14 8:39 AM, "Kessler CTR Mark J" <mark.kessler....@usmc.mil> > >wrote: > > > >>Since this is hosted publicly but not donated, I assume we cannot > >>cherry pick any good changes from as4... > >> > >>-Mark > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: bkelley [mailto:brady.kel...@cleantelligent.com] > >>Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:15 AM > >>To: dev@flex.apache.org > >>Subject: Re: ActionScript 4? What the hell? > >> > >>DarkStone wrote > >>> I believe Adobe said in the flash runtime roadmap that AS4 was dropped: > >>> http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplatform/whitepapers/roadmap.html > >>> > >>> Now they reopen AS4 on GitHub, what does it mean? > >> > >>From the read me on the github project: "Adobe is publishing the > >>ActionScript 4 specifications in the hope that they may be useful to > >>the programming language and managed runtime communities. The > >>specifications are as they existed when the project with which they > >>were associated was discontinued and therefore may be considered > >>incomplete. Source code for the compiler and runtime is not available. > >>Adobe has no plans to resume development of ActionScript 4." > >> > >>Looks like it is just for reference only, Adobe has no plans to > >>continue development, unfortunately. :-( > >> > >> > >> > >>-- > >>View this message in context: > >>http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/ActionScript-4-Wh > >>at- > >>t > >>he-hell-tp34089p34106.html > >>Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > >
