Oh darn, hit Send too soon... ... re-architect the framework, was the intended ending.
On 21.11.2012, at 22:10, Hordur Thordarson wrote: > This sounds like a very reasonable strategy to me, ie. continue supporting > (as long as makes sense) the current AS3/Flash VM solution and concurrently > work towards a AS3 --> JS solution to remove the Adobe dependency and > possibly re-architect the. > > On 21.11.2012, at 21:04, Alex Harui wrote: > >> On 11/21/12 12:53 PM, "Kevin Newman" <capta...@unfocus.com> wrote: >> >>> But if we are to change languages, why not go with a language that, >>> looks a lot like AS3 (and ports easy), addresses the language >>> scalability issues of JavaScript (lack of classes, typing, a compiler, >>> etc.), and can compile to JS as well as other languages? Haxe can be >>> compiled into JS, ABC/SWF, C++, C#, etc. >> My angle for now is not to change languages. We can write in AS3 and >> cross-compile to JS and maybe other languages. Apache Flex effectively owns >> AS3 because it owns a compiler for it. >> >>> Why NOT use Haxe? >> -Haxe is not in Apache. >> -There are lots of existing AS3 code libraries I think we should try to >> leverage. >> -I know how AS3 behaves on Flash. >> >> But again, none of these, even in aggregate, are strong enough reasons to >> a-priori say that some other group of folks shouldn't pursue a rewrite on >> Haxe. >> >> -- >> Alex Harui >> Flex SDK Team >> Adobe Systems, Inc. >> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui >> >
