See in-line. ‹peter On 1/13/17, 1:35 PM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira" <carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote:
>Hi Peter, > >2017-01-13 19:22 GMT+01:00 Peter Ent <p...@adobe.com>: > >> I was speaking to a friend that has some JavaScript developers working >>for >> him. They use React and React/Native for their mobile apps. His feeling >>is >> that web-centric apps (e.g. Amazon.com) are going to be replaced with >> mobile apps since mobile devices are cheaper than laptops. They are >> concentrating their app development to server-side services with native >> apps delivered via React/Native. >> >> IMO then, what FlexJS needs is the ability to go native. This isn't >> necessary for a 1.0 launch, but having FlexJS/Native with applications >> constructed in ActionScript and MXML and then cross-compiled into Swift >>or >> Java could go a long way to make FlexJS the platform for cross-device >> development. >> > > >I already see that. but for 2.0, as you said native (swift or java) seems >huge work. >But...what about SWF *native* ? >I mean, SWF Stage3D mode is very performant (I think even native) right? >I think FeathersUI is Stage3D powered and is performant on Native. someone >correct me If I'm wrong. >So maybe SWF should be not display object ready but stage3d ready to allow >us to have the same performance as native > >That's is for me the main reason for SWF existence. Alex said that actual >SWF FlexJS framework based on display list could be very performant...I >don't know since we didn't make any benchmark here and that it had the >advantage of have accessibility implemented... I wasn't thinking of FlexJS/Native as desire to dump SWF and JS-xcompile, but FlexJS/Native as a new addition and option for folks who want to work in ActionScript and layout their apps in MXML but want a native application as the end result, rather than going through Cordova. >
