Hi Well, I'm sad to say it, but those doubts now arise from the fact that Flex generates bytecode that runs on a VM that does not perterce to us, we are required to use the features it comes, and not what would like to have. Some features that were designed in the list (Generics, proposed by myself) would not be possible due to lack of resources the VM.
I believe the best way to become Flex is a framework for RIA development, but without the dependence on Flash Player. Disagree with this dependence because we have to adjust ourselves when Adobe changed their thinking about Flash Player, as is happening now. The development of the new VM and AS4 specification is not reported or discussed with Apache Flex, knowing that we depend exclusively of Flash Player and AIR to execute applications. This in my opinion is terrible. Again we will have to wait for an update from Falcon to generate code for the V12, this delay the progress of the Flex when we are expecting more and more code from Adobe. I'm not saying that we should use haxe, or some other compiler, just think the time is an even broader discussion. The Flex should continue only with Flash Player / Adobe AIR runtime? Regards Stefan Horochovec 2012/11/16 Gordon Smith <gosm...@adobe.com> > > 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 > >
