@Alex, I didn't mean to take away from your work. I only meant "explicit" work mainly targeting SWF, as you said, your work has been related to FlexJS.
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 5/12/15, 5:59 AM, "Glenn Willianms" <i...@tinylion.co.uk> wrote: > > >Thanks for the info > > > >:-) if only adobe had given it just one more year ay > > Well, I wouldn’t say that “there hasn’t been any work”. Many changes I’ve > made to Falcon for the SWF output for FlexJS should have benefited > Falcon's ability to generate SWFs for the current Flex SDK. > > Way back in October 2013, I got a large 20MB SWF to complete compilation > of an existing code base and startup and show the right thing. Unofficial > measurements at the time showed only 25% speed improvement, not 2x or > better like many folks were hoping for. I think those findings killed > some enthusiasm to replace MXMLC with Falcon. > > > Sure, Falcon and Flex would be further along if Adobe spent more money and > time on it, but the fact is, it wasn’t working as a business for Adobe. > At least now, the future of this technology is not controlled by a > corporation. It is up to the folks on these mailing lists. > > For the most part, you don’t have to be a compiler expert to work on > Falcon. The kinds of bugs you’ll hit just need patience to find the right > point in the code and get it to do something slightly different. Folks > are welcome to try to use Falcon on their existing projects and file bugs. > > As Mike points out, if there turns out to be a bug that requires fixing > the BURM, that will be a hard thing to fix, but so far, I haven’t hit one. > The community could rise up and replace the BURM by creating a SWF > backend for FalconJX. Honestly, I think it could perform even better than > the BURM for the level of optimizations that are currently done by MXMLC. > > -Alex > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Michael Schmalle [mailto:teotigraphix...@gmail.com] > >Sent: 12 May 2015 13:28 > >To: dev@flex.apache.org > >Subject: Re: Falcon progress for as flex sdk > > > >I haven't been around for about 2 years, just started checking the > >commits and things. It seems there really hasn't been any work on the SWF > >Falcon compiler since about the time Gordon stopped committing changes to > >MXML. > > > >I remember I spent a lot of time studying the code, most all classes I > >studied and the BURM is just to complicated to just jump in and start > >doing things. Unless you already have experience with that tech, it's > >almost a full time job working/learning it. > > > >Actually, the BURM in FalconJS is what prompted me to write FalconJX, I > >just didn't have enough time to learn JBurg and understand everything > >that was going on. I spent less time writing the whole > >walker/visitor/compiler framework then the time it would take me to learn > >JBurg. :) > > > >I have a lot of experience with ANTLR and parser/lexers but that is only > >half of the SWF compiler. > > > >Mike > > > >On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Glenn Willianms <i...@tinylion.co.uk> > >wrote: > > > >> Hi folks > >> > >> > >> > >> Just trying to catch up on what's been happening over the past few > >> months here > >> > >> > >> > >> Has there been any progress on Flacon when it comes to standard flex > >> projects? > >> > >> > >> > >> Just wanted an update on where we stand right now > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks for every ones hard work here > >> > >> > >> > >> Cheers > >> > >> > >> > >> glenn > >> > >> > > > > > > > >----- > >No virus found in this message. > >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > >Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4342/9755 - Release Date: 05/12/15 > > > >
