I think if some work were to go into this, it would be a great primer for the issues around targeting javascript/HTML regardless of which compiler is used. Many issues that were raised in the "porting to haxe" threads revolved around generic issues that would need to be dealt with regardless of whether falconJS or a separate custom compiler is used instead. I think this puts haxe into a bad light, and offsets the problems the flex community will have further down the road, when it's finally decided to put some work into cross-compiling.
Nicolas didn't mention how haxe can be used from AS3/flex with minimal work, because that's only possible over the flash runtime, which is only a great reason if you wish to interface with flex from the haxe source code (so the other way around). >From my point of view, being a little bit naive about flex, and having plenty of experience cross-compiling flash->js code with haxe (my first demo was end 2008 [1]), looking at the flex code is quite intimidating at first, and it would take me a considerable amount of time to find a starting point. It would make it hugely more approachable if a tiny cross section of core classes + one independent component were identified from another expert as a potential candidate for a POC, ignoring any parsers, ignoring tooling and most importantly not dependent on other parts of the infrastructure. Regarding Arnoud Bos' suggestion of using as3hx, this might be a solution, if (and only if) it's desired to keep as3 as-is, but I doubt it will be a satisfactory solution, because I suspect eventually flex will want to migrate some of it's components to pure HTML equivalents, which is difficult to do purely on an NME basis. [1] http://lists.motion-twin.com/pipermail/haxe/2008-November/020644.html - Niel On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Michael A. Labriola < labri...@digitalprimates.net> wrote: > >Hasn't the MXMLC Flex compiler been open source since version 3? > > No, not really. If you look at the licenses (which are contradictory in > some cases) the modules directory containing the compiler source *may* have > been Adobe license and not Mozilla so we may not have the right to > redistribute. This is one of the long-ish battles Spoon was fighting as we > wanted to modify this source. > > Mike > >
