> Currently I see no compelling reason to move to the new VM when it comes out. > Once we know more about it that may change but it sounds like it wont be > compatible with AS3.
The new VM will not execute the old bytecode that any AS3 compiler currently produces. Adobe is turning its new Falcon-based AS3 compiler into an AS4 compiler that produces the new bytecode for V12. > The existing one for the moment works and is likely to be around for many > many years. Yes, Adobe isn't going to "break the web" by discontinuing V11 support any time soon. - Gordon -----Original Message----- From: Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com] Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 5:18 AM To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Flex 5 in haxe Hi, > I've said it before it is a really great idea to write Flex in a > language that can be compiled to other platforms. Haxe is a great > language that lives to its promise. I only know a little about Haxe. Could you comment on what would be required (in terms of skills and effort) to port Flex to Haxe? I know it's ActionScript like but is missing a few features that Flex may be using? Other than compiling to multiple targets does it have any other significant advantages? Any idea if there are likely to be major performance issues due to the fact that Flex is reasonably complex and designed for the Flash VM? > Going with Actionscript now would be a problem as it won't be long > until the next Actionscript will come out and then Flex 5 would have > to be written again. Currently I see no compelling reason to move to the new VM when it comes out. Once we know more about it that may change but it sounds like it wont be compatible with AS3. The existing one for the moment works and is likely to be around for many many years. > I wonder how large the next Flash player would be in terms of file size. Bigger but not significantly so I would guess (1.5x current size at most?). Again don't really see this as an issue for not using it. Thanks, Justin
