Haha, this would be a full time job to do that Alex. :) Mike
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > I also remembered this morning that I speculated on the impact on compiler > performance of replacing Jburg with a FalconJX “back-end” that outputs > SWFs. It isn’t on my list of priorities since we have a compiler that > works, but it just occurred to me that maybe Michael Schmalle and some > others might find that interesting. > > Just thinking out loud, there would be two or three proof points, one when > you first get enough code to produce a SWF, another when you can produce > the same SWF that the Jburg reducer/generator does, so you know you are > taking into consideration some of the optimizations that the reducer can > currently do (I believe it does constant folding) and much later, if ever, > when other optimizations are warranted (tail-call, in-lining, etc). > > I wouldn’t be surprised if Jburg loses at the first proof point because > I’ve stepped through the code and watched it make several function calls > to output a single ABC sequence, but IIRC, the promise of a BURM is > supposed to be in the optimizations (the rewrites). On the JS side, we > send the JS to the Google Closure Compiler which is also doing rewrites. > > -Alex > > On 4/27/15, 10:35 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > > > >On 4/27/15, 10:20 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> > wrote: > > > >>Hi, > >> > >> > >>has anything significantly changed with FlexJS and Falcon from a > >>packaging point of view? > > > >They are still two separate packages. The list of SWCs in FlexJS has > >changed significantly as well as where the source is located. > > > >> > >>I had thought that I head Alex say that JBurg was taken out of Falcon to > >>make it more understandable ... is that true or was that a memory of a > >>dream? I could see the jburg jar is still downloaded ... > > > >Jburg was and still used by the SWF compiler. Jburg was in the original > >cross-compiler called FalconJS, but some folks thought it was too hard to > >learn and created FalconJX that we use today. But it has been that way > >since before the 0.0.1 releases. > > > >> > >> > >>I guess with FlexJS a lot has changed, but did that have an effect on the > >>generated artifacts or are the changes related to the artifacts content > >>and how the compiler deals with it? > > > >Not sure what you mean. > > > >-Alex > > > >
