I'll try to make it happen in Falcon. - Gordon Smith, Falcon team, Adobe
-----Original Message----- From: Martin Heidegger [mailto:m...@leichtgewicht.at] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 10:31 AM To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Flex adopting haXe ? Thanks for explaining that, Gordon. I guess everybody wonders why the compiler doesn't make use of those opcodes in the the other syntax. yours Martin. On 23/02/2012 03:25, Gordon Smith wrote: > Flash Player has special newarray and newobject bytecodes that are used for > array literals like [ 1, 2, 3 ] and object literals like { a: 1, b: 2, c: 3 } > and are faster than a generic constructor call. That's why the coding > guidelines for Flex recommend using the literal syntax rather than new > Array() or new Object(). > > - Gordon Smith, Falcon team, Adobe > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roland Zwaga [mailto:rol...@stackandheap.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 7:29 AM > To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Flex adopting haXe ? > >>> From: Martin Heidegger [mailto:m...@leichtgewicht.at] >>> Sent: 22 February 2012 15:18 >>> Also another thing is that >>> >>> if(a == null) is slower than if(a) .... at least compiled with mxmlc. >> Is it really? I didn't know that. >> >> Writing code that enables a cast + comparison to happen quicker than >> a direct comparison takes some doing! :/ > > I'm hoping that Falcon wil emit some more sane opcodes as well. > Actionscript is rife with such weird performance behaviors. > > Apparently this: > var array:Array = []; > is faster than: > var array:Array = new Array(); > > There's plenty more examples like that... > >
