On 6/3/15, 8:04 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote:
>No I just meant there will never be an AS4.(generics, first class >metadata, >method overloading types, things other languages are getting, just look at >Java8). They kewn they had to give an option of lambda functions because >sometimes Java is just to verbose to do simple things, AS3 can be looked >at >that way with some things as well(compared to rapid fire javascript). IMO, AS4 was a whole new language. I might be missing something, but every time I see “let” I think back to BASIC, not forward. If you think FlexJS needs generics and method overloading to even have a chance, well, then if you are right then the uphill is very steep, but I don’t think that is the case. And if FlexJS can be come popular without these things, then folks with skills will show up to help make it happen unless their implementation is somehow blocked by the VM’s verifier, and that’s only true if folks require the SWF verification step. Right now, everyone writing JS apps is living with compile-time verification, why can’t we at least to the same? We don’t need to store metadata in a trait. If we can stick it on the JS class, we can stick it on an AS class. C++ (at least, the MS compiler several years ago) used decorated names for method overloading. I keep thinking that should work for AS as well until you start calling things with [bracket] syntax. But maybe that is good enough. Feel free to fork threads to discuss implementation pros and cons on AS language enhancements. And as I said elsewhere, the big money for FlexJS may be in the migration of existing code bases. Even if we never get as big as TS, there seems to be enough existing AS code bases to keep our committers nice and busy helping folks migrate off of Flash until we’re old and gray (oh, wait, I’m sort of old and gray already). -Alex
