On 11/28/2012 11:08 PM, Michael Schmalle wrote:
That being said.
I may be a complete idiot in thinking here but, why use a framework
like jQuery if you have a framework in ActionScript.
Now let me finish my thought, I know we arn't talking about using
jQuery but we do have the compiler that can do "majic" when
transcoding. So I agree that isn't it the best for us as a group to
figure out the bare bones fasted possible javascript implementation
and bend the compiler to service the needs of the performat code path?
I am trying hard to encourage people to answer positively on this
question :)
The compiler is just a tool, it doesn't care how it compiles as to js.
Pretty much what has been said in this thread is why I am still on
this project. I don't even use ActionScript right now. But to think I
could have a hand at helping an underdog take an implementation route
that was not a "candy" route for gaining top followers is a great
feeling. If this project gets started based on performance arguments
it has a good chance at succeeding.
I do believe so. I am running my own project which is pretty much about
this, AS3 -> JS, but I would sacrifice it for the sake of seeing Flex
reborn on JS platform as a king of RIA again.
Mike
Quoting Daniel Wasilewski <devudes...@gmail.com>:
Well,
I feel like one, because only FalconJS subject activated me on this
list :)
And to eliminate the 'IF' from your conditional statement, just a
quick one:
http://jsperf.com/jqury-vs-plainjs
Dan
On 11/28/2012 10:26 PM, Michael Schmalle wrote:
Hey,
Your not an outsider, everything I have read of yours is golden. At
least you are trying to explain this stuff to people who don't have
a lot of js experience.
If what you are saying about jQuery and performance is true then;
"I do believe that it is possible to make a easy to develop
environment and spit out efficient code on the other side.
And not many ongoing development in this area has as much
opportunity to get something done well as Apache has at the moment."
I couldn't agree more. Sometimes being an infant has it's advantages
in a new world because you don't have any bad habits yet!
Mike
Quoting Daniel Wasilewski <devudes...@gmail.com>:
I can spare my free time on this, Possibly not on Apache
contributor level because I am total noob when comes to it. I don't
even managed to set up my environment for flexSDK ;) But this is
because I've got AIR corrupted and some windows x86 redistributable
corupted libs blabla, the only reasonable solution is to go for
fresh Windows installation. Hell no...!! ;)
I am not JS guru, but would like to get involved and do my best
even as outsider.
I was digging into JS for past year just to investigate the
possibilities. Mostly from performance point of view and mobile
development.
In regards to instanceof:
Here is something that haxe is using
js.Boot.__instanceof = function(o,cl) {
try {
if(o instanceof cl) {
if(cl == Array) return o.__enum__ == null;
return true;
}
if(js.Boot.__interfLoop(o.__class__,cl)) return true;
} catch( e ) {
if(cl == null) return false;
}
switch(cl) {
case Int:
return Math.ceil(o%2147483648.0) === o;
case Float:
return typeof(o) == "number";
case Bool:
return o === true || o === false;
case String:
return typeof(o) == "string";
case Dynamic:
return true;
default:
if(o == null) return false;
if(cl == Class && o.__name__ != null) return true; else null;
if(cl == Enum && o.__ename__ != null) return true; else null;
return o.__enum__ == cl;
}
}
having something like that implemented
'is' is as easy as:
Std["is"] = function(v,t) {
return js.Boot.__instanceof(v,t);
}
But obviously, it needs to live within rest of the sugar :).
Are you able to provide the list of stuff/fields that compiler is
expecting to meet on the other side?
Dan
On 11/28/2012 9:42 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
On 11/28/12 1:35 PM, "Daniel Wasilewski" <devudes...@gmail.com>
wrote:
So, please tell me why not to go the classic route as a very
little overhaul
for the application that can be built on top of AS3/Flex?
This is bloody 3 classes with 4 methods in it, and we are not
talking here
about few % but tens.
It can only grow exponentially to the scale of your project.
I don't know enough to have an reason not to go the classic
route. But
someone else will have to step up to do the work.
That said, because we are cross compiling AS, does the classic
route support
as many features of AS, especially the reflection-oriented
features? We
want to try to compile business logic untouched and it might be
using "is",
"in", "instanceof", etc. Resig's blog seems to indicate that
support for
instanceOf was important and required all of that code.
Dan
