Josh, You ARE the reason I am on this list right now from 2 years away. Your Feathers framework proves how well ActionScript "doesn't" get in the way of making an app quick.
I was able in about 2 days to pick it up and get something going with my audio stuff. That said, Alex and Erik did a lo(most)t of work on the MXML "emitter" I say that because it doesn't actually create js, just a data structure. I focused on the AS to JS part and took that experience to the Randori compiler that was actually a SWC, RBL and transpiler all in one compiler. I even had a new version of an ASDoc tool in that repo(it works right now). If I knew people like you were getting interested in these projects, I know it's a catalyst for me because I met you back in 2005-2006(can't remember), right when AIR(Apollo) was released at the Adobe component developer summit. I know exactly why you are still using ActionScript. For now, if anything was done with FalconJX, it would probably be by my hands, so if there is interest in some type of "idea", I am all ears. This really goes back to what I said about 40 posts ago now that all the components need to be tested at the finite level so we actually can have confidence advertising FlexJS and not just "hope" it works. If it blows up in just a couple larger clients faces, it's not good. Thanks for taking the time to write. :) Mike On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why would someone pick ActionScript over TypeScript? I have ten years of > experience with ActionScript. If I were to switch away from Flash/AIR > today, I'd prefer to keep using the same language and focus on learning new > libraries (whether with a framework like FlexJS or lower-level DOM). It's > significantly harder to learn a new language and its libraries at the same > time. I've given up on some attempts in the past. > > As for TypeScript's JS framework definitions, I feel like it would be easy > to port them over in an automated way. If there were some way for the > compiler to understand them natively, that would be cool too. I remember > hearing talk of other transpiler authors agreeing that TypeScript's format > for definitions was something that they'd be willing to standardize, for > everyone's convenience. It would definitely suck if every language had to > have its own source of definitions. > > Yes, as Mike points out, I think it's compelling to know that the > transpiler isn't caught up in some kind of spiderweb of an SDK, and that > can be used on its own. However, there are other reasons. > > Today, if I want to do a quick test/experiment of some API that isn't > dependent on the entirety of the Flex framework, I don't create a new Flex > project. I create an ActionScript project so that I don't have all the > baggage where I'm forced to break out of Flex's high-level abstractions. A > simple transpiler that isn't dependent on a framework would be nice for the > same reason. > > If I'm just trying out this transpiler for the first time, it would be nice > to have a stripped down environment that I can play around in that isn't > meant for building apps. I want to see what the transpiled JavaScript looks > like to make sure that it's not a crazy mess. If there is code generated to > set up the framework too, then that's going to get in the way and it might > hurt my first impressions. Additionally, it might be easier (or at least > look easier) to set up a hello world for the language alone while avoiding > any additional framework dependencies. > > I understand that releasing a project with only the transpiler, without a > framework and all the goodies, will require more resources. However, I > think from a marketing/PR kind of perspective, a transpiler would be > valuable to help people see ActionScript as continuing to be relevant, even > if they've moved on from Flash. It would be an easy step for them to see > that Flex and MXML are still relevant too. I don't know if that step is > necessary. My gut feeling says that this kind of progression feels right, > though. > > - Josh > > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Michael Schmalle < > teotigraphix...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/15/15, 12:35 PM, "Michael Schmalle" <teotigraphix...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >FlexJS does massive more since it does CSS, MXML States etc. But that > > > >compiler in the repo right now can do what you mentioned already. > > > > > > Josh’s idea is interesting. In both Randori and FlexJS, the transpiler > > is > > > buried in the package. I think Josh is saying to make it “the” > package. > > > Nothing else in it except FalconJX. > > > > > > > > Alex, it is. What do you mean buried in packages? You can run the > > Randori.main() and pass it a flex-config.xml. I made compiler args for > all > > the output locations etc. > > > > So, I be numb but a transpiler has to have a main method and a config, > that > > is all the compiler is. The config says run FalconJX, I mean Randori > main() > > just could run 3 different compilers on the same parse run reusing the > data > > model. > > > > > > > > > Did Randori have a SWC of HTML DOM APIs? In FlexJS, we are sort of > > hiding > > > the DOM. > > > > > > > > Yes see; https://github.com/RandoriAS/randori-libraries > > > > > > > > > I think to do what Josh is suggesting we’d need a SWC of HTML > > > DOM APIs and make sure FalconJX doesn’t really need > > > playerglobal/airglobal. Having folks download from Adobe to make this > > > thing work would probably kill enthusiasm for it. > > > > > > > Alex, this goes back to our conversation earlier this week about > > playerglobal.swc. :) You said you had special sauce, I said I wasted > weeks > > trying to fake a DOM only player global. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > I have concerns about the energy required to make a FalconJX-only > package > > > successful. How would we get people to try it? How would we ever find > > > the resources to compete with TypeScript and its JS framework wrappers? > > > > > > > > > DOn't know. I know alot of these libraries scrap HTML docs and its all an > > automated process, Roland put a lot of time into his scrappers, check out > > how many libraries we had 2 years ago! > > > > > > > > > The thing about FlexJS is that I feel like we can get former Flex > > > developers to try it and get things started that way, but without MXML, > > if > > > you are going to write a project purely in JS or AS or TS, why would > you > > > pick AS with TS being so much more mature? > > > > > > Still, an interesting idea. > > > > > > > > Well, it's only a tool and I think Josh is saying having a vanilla > > transpiler from AS to JS shows how compartmentalized our projects are. > Flex > > had a real bad reputation for hauling the kitchen sink wherever it went > in > > the UI framework and it's tool chain. > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > -Alex > > > > > > > > >
