Yeah, the ES5 output. While I think the output looks good from TypeScript, I figured it wouldn't hurt to point out an alternative. I'm sure it's pretty similar, but when it comes to the little details, you might see something there that you like better.
- Josh On May 27, 2015 4:01 PM, "Michael Schmalle" <teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
