I hate adding on to my own reply but I have on more comment on this.
As Dan and I were discussing and others as well, performance.
Obviously browser execution is top most priority but what about the
other performance not mentioned... the community contributions.
If you have something as complex as what FlaconJS is on the backend,
with 1 maybe two part time developers to push it forward only because
they are the only ones that understand it (JBurg, SWF). Then where
does this actually leav the performance of the project as a whole?
Dead locked in stale code as the months and years role by.
I'm usually not this passionate about something but, I think it would
be a serious mistake to count on FalconJS in it's current
implementation. I have years of experience in a different area then
the professional engineers, which just means maybe I have a unique
perspective here.
So bottom line is, I really think we need to think about whether the
current js generation of js or whatever other platform we do is
feasible to carry on into the future being maintained by developers
that may not have a computer science degree.
Long story short, by not choosing the correct implementation of the
cross compiler now, we could seriously be affecting the other
performance area of this project in the future, lets not neglect this
important area.
Go look at TypeScript's parser and emitters, they use the same visitor
pattern using straight AST!
Mike
Quoting Michael Schmalle <apa...@teotigraphix.com>:
jangaroo/jooc/backend/JsCodeGenerator.java
This is the exact pattern I was talking about implementing. I think
it's so solid and you have done a great job at implementing it.
As I have said in previous posts today, The way FalconJS digests
it's AST is through SWF visitors. You are using straight AST from
your parser.
Folks, having Frank drop this line and the discussions going on at
the moment, there are definitely a couple different paths that can
be taken with producing javascript.
If I have my way we would use an implementation like Franks, the
problem with it as it stands in Apache is there is no infrastructure
built like Frank has built, this is why the engineers used an SWF to
represent that infrastructure.
The problem with the current SWF/JBurg implementation is it VERY
confusing for most developers. With Franks implementation I was able
to understand what he was doing today within 20 minutes and could
jump right in and start coding things. With the current FalconJS
emitters there is no way that would happen.
So, I would love to see if we could think about a common goal to
energize both projects and see where one could help the other. I
truly believe now by looking at the code BEFORE this post our
projects have the exact same goal but can do different things.
Mike
Quoting Frank Wienberg <fr...@jangaroo.net>:
Hi folks,
here is another "outsider" who would like to contribute to the JS runtime
format, if you are interested.
I am co-founder of the Open Source project Jangaroo, and as such have been
dealing with JavaScript-to-ActionScript-3 compilation for several years now.
In response to Bernd Paradies blogging about FalconJS, I blogged about
"simulating ActionScript 3 language features" extensively:
-
http://blog.jangaroo.net/2011/11/simulating-actionscript-in-javascript.html
-
http://blog.jangaroo.net/2011/12/simulating-actionscript-in-javascript.html
- http://blog.jangaroo.net/2012/01/simulating-actionscript-parameter.html
-
http://blog.jangaroo.net/2012/01/simulating-actionscript-rest-parameter.html
All described solutions are actually implemented in the Jangaroo Runtime,
which takes care of the code translated from AS3 to JS by the Jangaroo
Compiler coming alive.
In principle, we follow the "classic route", with the exception of how we
simulate private members: see the first two blog posts.
At first look the Jangaroo Runtime may seem overly complex to you, but it
does many more things (class loading / dependency management; class
initialization = execute static code at the right time; allow keeping
generated JS code and source AS3 code as similar as possible; automatic
method binding / correct "this", etc.), and the concepts described in the
blob posts also work without these additional features.
The Jangaroo Compiler is written in Java and has a separate code generator
(well you obviously won't need the parser) which might be worth having a
look at:
https://github.com/CoreMedia/jangaroo-tools/blob/master/jangaroo/jangaroo-compiler/src/main/java/net/jangaroo/jooc/backend/JsCodeGenerator.java
If you dare to use Maven ;-), it is really easy to play around with our
code generation: Just set up your own projects within minutes, starting
from an example project like
https://github.com/fwienber/jooflash-app-template or
https://github.com/CoreMedia/jangaroo-ext-as-examples .
Greetings,
-Frank-
Frank Wienberg
Software Architect & Jangaroo Evangelist
*frank.wienb...@coremedia.com*
* frank@jangaroo <fr...@jangaroo.net>.net*
CoreMedia AG
content | context | conversion
Ludwig-Erhard-Str. 18
20459 Hamburg, Germany
www.coremedia.com
Executive Board: Gerrit Kolb (CEO), Dr. Klemens Kleiminger (CFO)
Supervisory Board: Prof. Dr. Florian Matthes (Chairman)
Trade Register: Amtsgericht Hamburg, HR B 76277
--------------------------------------------------------
--
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
