On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Yep, would like to see private / protected constructors, method > overloading, generics and lambda in falcon to overwhelm any competitor :-) > I wish I got paid doing this because I would take 3 months of my life and learn the low level of compiler theory and engineering and I could implement it in the compiler. That is what sucks, the ActionScript language COULD compete with these languages out today as a progressive language, but there is no money behind it to drive innovation. > > I've been trying time ago for private / protected constructors using class > annotation in the compiler, I wasn't far but lost all my job with my > computer :-( and wasn't easy for me as I'm not a compiler guy. > > I guess the same principle could use for method overloading, not sure for > generics but why not as at the end, it is only compile time checking and > the info could be erase at runtime as done in Java. > Can you show me examples of what you were doing? Start a new thread if you do. Mike > > Thoughts ? > > Frédéric THOMAS > > > ---------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 11:40:22 -0400 > > Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration > > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Frédéric THOMAS < > webdoubl...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Btw, what happen when you compile JS.swc stuffs in AS ? > >> > > > > > > Yeah, the only reason for the JS.swc is code completion and compile API. > > You know, just tricks the compiler into thinking JS DOM calls are > > actionscript and does correct type checking. > > > > Basically think of the PLAINJS output type as a little "TypeScript" > > compiler. Justa quick AST generation and AST walk to emit JS code, done. > :) > > > > Mike > > > > > > > >> > >> Frédéric THOMAS > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------- > >>> From: webdoubl...@hotmail.com > >>> To: dev@flex.apache.org > >>> Subject: RE: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ > Integration > >>> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 16:31:32 +0100 > >>> > >>>> No, no more subclasses what I meant to say is if the output type is > JS, > >> the > >>>> client compiler will automatically configure the FlexJS emitter based > on > >>>> the fact it wants to produce clean JS. > >>> > >>> I'm fine with that approach as the FLEXJS_DUAL output type re-invokes > >> the compiler after the swf compilation to compile the JS with FLEXJS > output > >> type. > >>> > >>> Frédéric THOMAS > >>> > >>> > >>> ---------------------------------------- > >>>> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 11:27:03 -0400 > >>>> Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ > Integration > >>>> From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com > >>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org > >>>> > >>>> No, no more subclasses what I meant to say is if the output type is > JS, > >> the > >>>> client compiler will automatically configure the FlexJS emitter based > on > >>>> the fact it wants to produce clean JS. > >>>> > >>>> Mike > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Michael Schmalle < > >>>> teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Frédéric THOMAS < > >> webdoubl...@hotmail.com > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>> I really want to try the JS.swc in this new build. :) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Oh yes, I don't want to miss that either, big up for you too Mike !! > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm not kidding myself, there is still a huge amount of work to be > >> done to > >>>>> get it to work correctly based on externals that are more complicated > >> then > >>>>> the ones I did right now. I think I managed to get packages(js > >> namespaces) > >>>>> working but I really haven't tested them. > >>>>> > >>>>> On top of this, the FlexJS emitter needs a bunch of configuration > added > >>>>> through it's emitter stage (to not produce GCC comments, inherits > etc). > >>>>> > >>>>> What will probably happen is there will just be a JS output type that > >>>>> subclasses the FlexJS emitter and turns everything off, then it's > not a > >>>>> rats nest of config arguments. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mike > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> Frédéric THOMAS > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ---------------------------------------- > >>>>>>> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 11:06:59 -0400 > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ > >> Integration > >>>>>>> From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com > >>>>>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Great job Fred, so this means we just need the FlexJS SDK and it > will > >>>>>> work > >>>>>>> right? Do we still have to setup a library for code completion > etc.? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I really want to try the JS.swc in this new build. :) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Mike > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Frédéric THOMAS < > >>>>>> webdoubl...@hotmail.com> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi Alex, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I understand what you did but not sure I could reproduce, I wasn't > >> that > >>>>>>>> far in my experiment but I still miss the complete round trip > logic > >> of > >>>>>>>> jBurg, I guess I would need to spend more time on it to get it > >> better. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Whatever, that's awesome, we can now compile and debug without any > >>>>>>>> dependencies on the Flex SDK in IntelliJ :-) big up !! > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I will commit soon what I've done too. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>> Frédéric THOMAS > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------- > >>>>>>>>> From: aha...@adobe.com > >>>>>>>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ > >>>>>> Integration > >>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 22:19:47 +0000 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> OK, I think I got it. Try my latest commit. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -Alex > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 6/12/15, 12:41 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>OK, I will work on it. Thanks for trying, it is rather strange > >> stuff. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>On 6/12/15, 9:16 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>Hi Alex, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>Well, I've been trying to get why I always get a cost "not > >> feasible" > >>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>your function but I'm failing to understand the logic of jBurg, > >> maybe > >>>>>>>>>>>seing your solution will unligthen me but at the moment I'm > >> totally > >>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>the dark. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >
