I don't quite understand what you are saying but, I have said 100
times I do not like the Flash Player in many threads, read it on my
blog etc.
What I said below means, I would bet on AS3 language for the time
being NOT the SWF format. The compilers are lexers/parsers first and
parse AS3, MXML and CSS into AST which from there we can do anything
with, the ABC bytecode emitter is at the end of the chain and has
nothing to do with what I want to fiddle with.
So please do not think I want anything to do with the current or
future Flash Player AVM, I don't.
Mike
Quoting Stefan Horochovec <stefan.horocho...@gmail.com>:
I think a little differently, the only answer we have now is that we move
from dependence on runtime from Adobe. This lack of information and
changing business plans involving the VM is terrible for the future of
Apache Flex.
Or are we an independent solution for RIA development, or we will live
forever in this situation.
For me it is completely impractical to bet on a framework based on a VM
that who develops the framework, completely unaware of his future runtime.
Regards
Stefan Horochovec
2012/11/17 Hordur Thordarson <hor...@lausn.is>
> 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
>
--
Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
http://www.teotigraphix.com
http://blog.teotigraphix.com
