> From: da...@davidarno.org > To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: ActionScript and Apache Flex > Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:58:57 +0000 > > From: Web DoubleFx [mailto:webdoubl...@hotmail.com] > Sent: 12 January 2012 10:59 > > > 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. > > Makes sense. As for performance issues, that's easy to predict. If we just > want compile-time support for enums, private constructors, abstract methods > and classes and the like, then none of them will have a significant impact > on runtime performance. All will impact (at least slightly) on compilation > times. Similarly, if we want runtime checking, then they'll have runtime > performance impacts. > > I think all of: compiler-supported metadata, enums, private constructors, > abstract classes and generics would be easy to implement, as none require > special opcodes or do anything tricky with the VM. Other things (such as > method overloading and multiple inheritance/traits) would be impractical to > implement as the VM doesn't support them. Frustratingly though, until we get > our hands on the source if Falcon compiler, knowing the scope of work of > these tasks is difficult. > > David. >
Thank you David. Alex, are you agree with this analysis ? Frédéric Thomas
