>> why do you absolutely have to have equivalency with Java I agree we shouldnt use any other language as a benchmark. ActionScript is flexible where Java is not in many cases. We shouldnt risk loosingf expressiveness for the sake of equivalent language features.
I do agree strongly that we should be open to preproecessing and performance optimisations at the compiler level though. On 12 January 2012 10:59, Web DoubleFx <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > From: da...@davidarno.org > > To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: RE: ActionScript and Apache Flex > > Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:28:34 +0000 > > > > > From: Web DoubleFx [mailto:webdoubl...@hotmail.com] > > > Sent: 12 January 2012 08:28 > > >> My first question would be, why do you absolutely have to have > > equivalency with Java? > > > In short, to have a state of the art programming language. > > > > Sorry to be blunt, but this is a nonsense. Java is not a state-of-the-art > > language. It's an old language that needs putting out to pasture. If you > > want "state of the art" for the JVM, try Groovy or Scala. Remember, Java > > still doesn't have closures yet (they're rumoured to be coming in Java 8, > > but don't hold your breath), it doesn't have proper getters/setters etc > and > > it cannot support dynamic types. In some respects AS3 is more > > state-of-the-art than Java. > > > > Be careful what you wish for... > > > > David. > > > Ok, nothing is perfect but in this case, on the AS3, the implementation of > certain features would be more than well comed to believe the users > including myself, remains to be seen how this would impact on > performences, once things clear, the community could decide if such an > implementation would be beneficial or not, it is what I say, I'm not saying > that the language should be modeled on Java or another, but some features > can be good to be taken. > Frédéric Thomas
