So basically your saying the output of ES5 from Babel? Mike
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: > You might also consider looking at the output of Babel. Babel transpiles > ECMAScript 6 back to older versions of the language that are more widely > supported today. TypeScript is trying to be a superset of ES6, so it should > be pretty similar. > > http://babeljs.io > > - Josh > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Michael Schmalle < > teotigraphix...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > Ok Update. > > > > I have been researching TypeScript and it's output, this is what I am > > doing. For some reason this "just" makes sense to me and the are 100's of > > examples I can use to test the code generation against. > > > > Josh, I would say if you want to start experimenting with your framework, > > use what you just showed me as a base and I can meet you in the middle, > > then we can figure our the quirks together. > > > > I will/am start/ing working on this ASAP. > > > > Mike > > > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Michael Schmalle < > > teotigraphix...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > Ok, > > > > > > I am a doer... :) Since this is all POC right now and I am up to learn > > > some JS, I will use this as a format. I have done this JSEmitter 2 > times > > > now so the 3rd isn't going to be that hard, maybe the charm for me to. > > > > > > Note, most of the expressions and statements are already done. As > noted, > > > inheritance, scope and set/get always are the pains but if I have a > > target > > > output protocol like TypeScript's output, why not emulate it. > > > > > > Alex, I know what you are thinking... Don't. :) My gut feeling is, if I > > > start from the ground up and have NO dependencies on anything, I will > do > > > this twice as fast. I am very good at refactoring so once I have tests > > > working on the generated .js, we can see what could be abstracted to > and > > > from this emitter and FlexJS. > > > > > > I really think for my own sanity, I need to start in isolation and not > > get > > > in FlexJS's way either, that is another pro for me, no commit > conflicts, > > > nothing of that nature. > > > > > > Thoughts Josh, Alex? > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> When I played with TypeScript, I loved that I could subclass CreateJS > > >> prototypes very easily. As long as something like that is possible > from > > >> ActionScript (assuming I could provide a SWC or something for CreateJS > > or > > >> whichever library I want to use), I don't have too strong of an > opinion > > on > > >> how the final JavaScript looks. > > >> > > >> I'll just say that I like the clean code that the TypeScript compiler > > >> outputs. To me, it looked pretty much like what I might write > manually, > > if > > >> I were using vanilla JavaScript. Looking at the TypeScript playground, > > the > > >> Inheritance example and the Modules example both look very nice. > > >> > > >> http://www.typescriptlang.org/Playground > > >> > > >> - Josh > > >> > > >> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Michael Schmalle < > > >> teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > New thread: > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On 5/27/15, 9:52 AM, "Michael Schmalle" < > teotigraphix...@gmail.com> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > >Well, when I said "teach" I just meant getting into the code. > > >> Really, I > > >> > > >know the base part of the compiler and the walker/visitor > framework > > >> well > > >> > > >;-), so getting FalconJX to use an HTML.swc would be exactly > what I > > >> am > > >> > > >looking for to do. > > >> > > > > > >> > > >This is where you can keep doing what you are good at and I can > > work > > >> on > > >> > > >what I am good at(code rendering). > > >> > > > > > >> > > >Can I ask you to start another thread and outline what you see > > needs > > >> to > > >> > be > > >> > > >done to accomplish what is in your mind dealing with FalconJX and > > the > > >> > > >HTML.swc? If you can just brainstorm, then I can ask you > questions > > to > > >> > fill > > >> > > >in the gaps that I am not seeing. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > As I see it, FalconJX should just be able to grab some SWCs and > > >> > > cross-compile some AS based on definitions in the SWCs. Right now > > we > > >> > feed > > >> > > it playerglobal/airglobal and FlexJS swcs with UIBase widgets, but > > in > > >> > > theory, as Josh suggests we should be able to replace those SWCs > > with > > >> > just: > > >> > > > > >> > > jsglobal.swc: > > >> > > Object > > >> > > Number > > >> > > String > > >> > > <what else>? > > >> > > > > >> > > HTML.swc: > > >> > > Window > > >> > > Event > > >> > > UIEvent > > >> > > MouseEvent > > >> > > HTMLElement > > >> > > etc. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > See for HTML lib, Roland used WebIDL parser to create it; > > >> > > > >> > > > https://github.com/RandoriAS/randori-libraries/tree/master/HTMLCoreLib > > >> > > > >> > The builtin.swc we made; > > >> > > > >> > > > https://github.com/RandoriAS/randori-tools/tree/develop/RandoriBuiltin > > >> > > > >> > Read the README, does this violate anything? > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Then folks should be able to test drive FalconJX by running some > AS > > >> > > through it to get any JS they normally use in their web apps, and > we > > >> > > should be able to stop writing any JS at all. All files in > > flex-asjs > > >> > that > > >> > > are currently .JS files should be able to be written in AS and > > >> > > cross-compiled with only those two SWCs. I can tell you that it > > would > > >> > > probably have saved us much time if we had this already. It is > > >> painful > > >> > > doing .JS code simply in the writing of ‘this.’ and ‘prototype’. > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > Yeah, not to mention compile time checking. :) > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > Anyway, that’s as far as I’ve thought on this subject. As you > said > > in > > >> > > another thread this is where we’d have to prove there are no > > >> hard-coded > > >> > > dependencies in Falcon/FalconJX on playerglobal/airglobal. > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > See the above links and give feedback on what you think. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > OK, one more thought: there may be reverse-engineering issues > about > > >> > > replacing playerglobal/airglobal, but I was hoping we might find > > some > > >> > > Tamarin code laying around that has what we’d start with for > > >> > jsglobal.swc. > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > I think this is what Roland actually did, I know he found it some > > >> where(how > > >> > to build the builtin.swc Randori used). > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Question; So the code style, you said we might use the FlexJS > emitter > > >> but I > > >> > don't see how that is possible since it's not a vanilla emitter. > > >> > > > >> > It seems to me I need to know the exact code style that a vanilla > > >> > transpiler will create and I can make that emitter as another > backend, > > >> what > > >> > do you think? > > >> > > > >> > @Josj you have any thoughts? I am ready to start writing it. :) > > >> > > > >> > Mike > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > -Alex > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
