Not so much to convince you otherwise, but in case others are curious why certain decision where made:
ActionScript is our source language. So is MXML. If it isn't, IMO, then it isn't Flex. We own the compilers and can make changes to the language, even changes that won't run in a SWF if we don't care about running a SWF. Our current cross-compiled output is JS with some dependencies on the Google Closure Library and then sent through the Google Closure Compiler for optimization, so we are using Google's resource quite a bit. The cross-compiler could probably be taught to output Dart or TypeScript. It was designed to have replaceable outputs. The Basic component set leverages the DOM, but other component sets can and will leverage Canvas. I chose to start with the DOM because at the time, some folks were still on IE8/9. Also, the DOM seemed to have more established accessibility support. I haven't kept up to know if there are good accessibility implementations for Canvas yet. Anyway, good luck with your move to Dart. -Alex On 7/15/16, 12:58 PM, "Jason Taylor" <ja...@dedoose.com> wrote: >I guess my main issue is actionscript itself. The language hasn't >progressed much in quite some time, support for asynchronous operations >in just not designed into the language, lamdas, expression trees, etc >etc, it's on it's way to a dead langage. Our teams have put in an >increadible ammount of work on FalconJX to support actionscript, and >google has put in an increadible ammount of work on running Dart in JS as >well as the DartVM. I however am coming to the conclusion that they >aren't mutally exclusive in that in some early tests recompiling the >FlexJS framework to Dart appears to be possible outright. As far as >component sets and targets, that's a separate debate from FlexJS on dart, >and while yes using a component set that mimics the flash display list >might incur a performance hit, we are talking about hitting the >Canvas/WebGL where performance is vastly superior than targeting the DOM. > I think FlexJS is great, I don't think Actionscript is great, and I >think we could be much better off letting the google team handle building >the compiler tools, VM, and let us focus on our framework in the best >language out there. Just my $.02, either way it's my pet project now, so >I'll see how far I can take this. >~ JT > >-----Original Message----- >From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] >Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 10:28 PM >To: dev@flex.apache.org >Subject: Re: FlexJS and Dart? > >Hi Jason, > >FlexJS isn't one framework/component set. It is being designed to >support a multitude of component sets. The initial "Basic" component set >that we have been working on is designed to have minimum overhead in its >JS output. In the Basic set, we specifically do not want to emulate >Flash in the browser because that will likely add another layer of >overhead. There is an experiment underway for a component set that does >emulate Flash and it will be a bigger effort and bigger code. > >In the APIs for the Basic set, I tried to keep some Flex concepts and >APIs, but I don't think I tied the APIs to Flash. Can you give me an >example of the "crud" you are talking about? I think we can support >workers some day. I still believe that it will be to your advantage to >be able to test your code with a "runtime verifier" which is why the >Basic set compiles to both SWF and JS. Most JS tools want you to have >all of your code in one place. Large apps are often built in a truly >modular fashion where code isn't or can't be gathered in one place. > >You can even use FlexJS/FalconJX compiler without the Basic component set >and just write ActionScript against native JS APIs or third-party >libraries. > >Or you can grow your own component set that is more tuned to what you >want. It can have signals, or whatever you want. It doesn't have to run >as a SWF. All we are providing is MXML and AS compilation and some >default SWCs, but our SWCs don't have to be the SWCs you use. > >In theory, you could even get the cross-compiler to spit out Dart instead >of JS, but I haven't spent any time figuring out how hard what would be. >Somebody could probably teach the compiler to handle generics and other >language improvements that can be output as additional code and don't >need runtime changes in the SWF and certainly for cross-compiled output. > >That's the cool part of Apache projects. No corporation controlling >things. You can do pretty much whatever you want. > >Thanks, >-Alex > >On 7/14/16, 6:14 PM, "Jason Taylor" <ja...@dedoose.com> wrote: > >>Hey guys, for various reasons I'm leaning towards picking Dart over >>actionscript for future projects, mostly because the dart language is >>advanced supporting async/await, generics, abstracts, and much more. >>However I think the team behind MXML, especially in FlexJS and the layout >>framework are second to none. I was contemplating bringing in FlexJS to >>dart via StageXL (http://www.stagexl.org/) an implmentation of the core >>flash runtine in Dart, along with a custom version of FlexJS that I would >>cross compile to Dart. Has anyone considered this path, and what are >>you're thoughts about this? Personally I don't like some of the >>decisions made in the FlexJS project regarding supporting flash >>runtimes as well as JS as it adds a lot of crud to the FlexJS codebase >>and ties our hands limiting us specifically to the flash runtime and >>avoiding some >>of the more multi-threaded oriented javascript developments. Just >>want to gather some opinions before me and my team start tearing into >>this. Some changes I would make to the FlexJS framework will include >>using something like signals instead of string events, heavily using >>multiple threads for layout & rendering. >>~ JT >> >
