+lots to exciting times On 10 January 2012 23:50, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > > > On 1/10/12 3:26 PM, "David Arno" <da...@davidarno.org> wrote: > > > I assume you mean here that the mxmlc compiler uses code also found in > the > > asc compiler? > Yes. Actually, these days, it shortcuts that a bit, but that was > essentially the original architecture. > > I didn't think asc existed as a separate executable that is > > called by mxmlc. When Adobe contribute first mxmlc and then falcon to > > Apache, we will - I assume - have the full code base to the complete AS3 > > source -> bytecode compilation process. Am I mistaken in this? > > > ASC is a separate executable but MXMLC doesn't call the executable. MXMLC > just links in some of the same files that go in the ASC.EXE. When we check > in MXMLC, Apache will have code that converts AS3 source to bytecode. > We're > still sorting through the IP issues of whether that can be the same files > that are in ASC today. > >> I don't understand how the compiler can affect the language. > > The compiler turns the language into bytecode. If we have control of a > > AVM-targeting compiler, then we are free to define the specification of > the > > language that it compiles. > > > > So presumably if we want to extend AS3 (with user-defined generics for > > example), then we'll have to rename the language to ApacheFlexScript or > some > > such? > I would want changes to the language to be called something else. Wouldn't > you recommend the same if you modified a Java compiler to handle different > langage constructs? You can't go to an AS3 reference and find those new > things. > > > >> IMHO, language evolution is not within the domain of responsibility of > > this project. > > I completely disagree. We now have an excellent opportunity to enable the > > community to dictate the future of the language, based on our needs, > rather > > than the business needs of Adobe. In fact in the future, should the > > community choose to, we might even divorce the Flex from the Flash > runtime, > > at which point even the low level contraints of the AVM built-in classes > > would be removed. Exciting times IMO. :) > Yes, we can diverge from ActionScript, but we cannot change the definition > of what ActionScript is, and we can't change the VM. Also consider that > Adobe has made no promises to fix issues in the VM caused by bytecode > sequences not generated by Adobe compilers. But I agree, it is exciting > times. > > -- > Alex Harui > Flex SDK Team > Adobe Systems, Inc. > http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui > >
