I am just being devils advocate with my own mind. I really don't have interest in talking about language features. :)
You have to realize, from my end, it's a black box with "all these companies". I mean I only have so much time and there is a fine line that I can give of my time for free to let others make money migrating things. I like working with compilers, that is obvious but then again, in about 2 months my life is going to change because I am going out on Android with a bunch of applications I will have to support. With that, I don't want to create to many fires that I might now be able to stoke. I never even really made money from app dev, all my income came from selling UI components. So I was never in the industry of maintaining a large code base. You probably can see I am wrestling with myself of how far I can go with helping, since I still don't have something in the next 4 months based of this work that would translate to something else, like food. :) Anyway, it's more just me trying no to bite of to much. There is a lot of work to get the existing as -> js working in FlexJS and all the other stuff that needs to be done for something like Josh's idea. Mike On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > 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 > >
