I am not entirely familiar either and I didn't mean to imply that I have any strong complaints with the way Haxe does things. I did read some forum posts about about others making a slew of suggestions regarding the way it's implemented and the product of the compilation for JS. Since I haven't investigated this topic in depth, I'm not "100% sold" as I mentioned in the last email.
What I meant by relatively obscure is that the project hasn't reached the level of popularity or developer commitment as something like PHP or Ruby. While it certainly isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, there is certainly a different between adding a dependency to an OSS project like PHP vs. Haxe. I'm not saying that Haxe is going away, I'm just saying that it bears consideration that there are not millions of developers contributing to and using that platform. On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Omar Gonzalez <omarg.develo...@gmail.com>wrote: > So I'm not that intimately familiar with how it compiles to JS, can you > elaborate on your concern here? > > Also, why do you say haxe is obscure? It is entirely open source, what's > obscure about that? > > -omar > > On Friday, November 16, 2012, Ben Dalton wrote: > > > Not to add fuel to the fire, but is choosing another platform like Haxe > as > > a core dependency of our project really a good idea? > > > > I like Haxe as a concept, but I'm not 100% sold on the way they implement > > the multiple compile targets (especially JS/HTML) AND am certainly > > concerned that the future of Flex would be so intertwined with this other > > relatively obscure project. > > > > Though it would enable a shorter path in the near term, depending on > > another translation/compilation layer looks risky to me both in terms of > > Flex's capabilities and longevity. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Carlos Rovira < > > carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > But bad news - in this situation i think guys from Adobe doesn't help > > us > > > with new compiler. > > > > > > This should not be the motivation to go one way or another. Adobe's > > > position is already shared and know: They want only gamming. They throw > > > flex away. Tools, AVMs and languages are updated and designed only with > > > gamming in mind... > > > > > > Alex, Carol and others are here payed by Adobe, but this project is > made > > of > > > individuals (although some of them are payed by a company). It's clear > > that > > > Adobe could close the participation of their people, but this is a risk > > we > > > could take if the main direction choosen is what Apache Flex need. > > > > > > We must think in what is the best for Apache Flex, and my position is > > that > > > a rewrite make us free of technology or tool to choose. And we should > not > > > depend exclusively on Flash Platform and Adobe decisions. It's only a > > > matter of choose a open source platform that's working and could give > us > > > support in the long term. > > > > > > Some months ago my thoughts was very different, but right now that a > full > > > rewrite is required, my opinion is clear about what to choose, and for > > > something new, I choose Haxe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Carlos Rovira > > > Director de Tecnología > > > M: +34 607 22 60 05 > > > F: +34 912 35 57 77 > > > http://www.codeoscopic.com > > > http://www.directwriter.es > > > http://www.avant2.es > > > > > >
