On 1/8/16, 11:39 PM, "jude" <flexcapaci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I would expect it to keep the same behavior and take a performance hit in >exchange. You can always add the option to "speed up" the JS version by >removing any of the casting methods. Have you tested the difference with >it >and without it in JS? I haven't, but it is not always a cheap function call. > > >*"...but the Google Closure Compiler implies that you should have >goog.require statements for all dependencies in an output file, and then >complains about circular dependencies if you do."* >It seems like the problem is with the Google Closure Compiler. That sounds >broken to me. Google is insisting that you should use interfaces and not have classes depend on other classes. So they will say it isn't broken. I've just about finished putting all of these options into compiler options. None of them will be on by default so you will all get to see where Google thinks you have circularities. What the defaults are when we release will depend on customer feedback. -Alex
