> The last two days proves that know one has any real answers to anything right > now. The only way to get answers is the scientific method of limit your > variables and test the crap out the ideas.
Well said, I totally agree with this :-) On 17.11.2012, at 19:00, Michael Schmalle wrote: > Before I commit to anything that is in Haxe land or total rewriting etc, I am > going to experiment with FalconAS, FalconJS and the MXML compiler for fun. > > To me as you just said, experimenting at the moment with something we have is > going to be an experiment for me. Unless some chariot flies from the sky and > lifts Apache Flex into the heavens, I think there is just going to be a lot > of experimenting with all angles until some one starts actually making > progress on something. > > The last two days proves that know one has any real answers to anything right > now. The only way to get answers is the scientific method of limit your > variables and test the crap out the ideas. > > Mike > > > Quoting Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl>: > >> I understand and I agree. I was just reacting to an email by Gordon >> explaining that MXML 'coverage' in Falcon is at 80%, but that the last 20% >> will take many man-months to finish, something Gordon on his own is >> obviously not capable of contributing. And then there's FalconJS, which >> from the few things I was able to find with a little help from Google, is >> awesome, but only a research project. That means that it has the promise to >> be great, but also that it will require a lot of work to get done. >> >> Now, I'm not (very) impatient, so if you can only get into details after >> the donation clears, I understand, but meanwhile the conversation seem to >> be about re-writing this and using that, anything but what we actually have >> available at the moment. I was looking at our resources and thinking about >> alternatives… and thought we should consider this as an option, or at least >> discuss using what we have and know to work. >> >> EdB >> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/17/12 4:47 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: >>> >>> > As a complete compiler noob, but can somebody answer this: >>> > >>> > Can we not build a 'mxmlcJS'? I understand that Falcon was specifically >>> > designed to have a 'variable backend' that allows for FalconJS to be >>> hooked >>> > in. Is something like that feasible with the 'previous generation' >>> > compiler(s)? >>> > >>> > The advantage would be that we have a fully fledged MXML/AS compiler that >>> > works with the current framework, so no need to rewrite the framework, >>> nor >>> > invest heavily in finishing the remaining 20% of the Falcon MXML parsing >>> > and finish FalconJS. We would 'only' have to rewrite the part of the >>> > compiler that currently outputs 'abc' and the browser side player >>> > (HTML/CSS/JS) :-) >>> > >>> > Thoughts? >>> > >>> In theory, Falcon should also be faster. And, IMO, the code is cleaner and >>> has fewer SDK dependencies which will be to our advantage when trying to >>> get >>> to other targets. >>> >>> - >>> Alex Harui >>> Flex SDK Team >>> Adobe Systems, Inc. >>> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Ix Multimedia Software >> >> Jan Luykenstraat 27 >> 3521 VB Utrecht >> >> T. 06-51952295 >> I. www.ixsoftware.nl >> > > -- > Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC > http://www.teotigraphix.com > http://blog.teotigraphix.com >
