>> We wouldn't be dependent on any particular runtime, which is one of my biggest concerns. HaXe compiled to SWFs which runs in the Flash runtime. Therefore we have project dependencies still with Adobe, but also introduce the HaXe community as a release dependency / artifact.
Where as if we just contuinue with Falcon then the compiler is within our community. The only external dependency is the AVM. This is purely my opinion from a project management perspective, not platform/runtime agnostisism - which of course is a good thing. On 13 January 2012 11:47, Tink <f...@tink.ws> wrote: > On 13 Jan 2012, at 11:36, Matthew Poole wrote: > > ...but still have dependences on the runtime fom Adobe. >> >> That would make project management significantly more complex. >> >> On 13 January 2012 11:31, Matthew Poole <mattjpo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > We wouldn't be dependent on any particular runtime, which is one of my > biggest concerns. > > - No Flash Player for mobile, and I think most computing is going to > become mobile over the next 5 years. > - Adobe could at any point state they that they are not going to dev FP > for the browser and only support AIR. > > Inevitable at the moment, Adobe are still in control of what we can > achieved and could easily wipe out any hard work that we've done due to > internal business decisions. > > As I understand Falcon doesn't yet support MXML, and because Adobe are no > longer developing Flex they may never add this which is also a concern, let > alone what FalconJS will support. > > Just airing my main concerns at the moment, that may be swayed by all the > hype and bad communication from Adobe > > (note Adobe get reference a lot on this forum and generally in a negative > light. I don't want the Adobe contributors to be put down by this, I think > when most refer to Adobe they mean the business decision makers, not > developers who have put in masses of hard work to get us where we are > today). >
