The conversation was about exploring a straight AST to JS convertor
and bypassing the JS emitting using SWF reducer.
My point was in the discussion that I don't know SWF format and JBurg
so trying to maintain FalconJS in it's current state would be hard for
a lot of developers.
A lot of cross compilers just work with the straight AST in our case
the IASNode or IDefinition frameworks.
I also thought having this ability would allow other targets to be
implemented more quickly IE Java android or something...
What do you think?
And that was my understanding as well. IT looks like you talking about
ABC AST as the joint point. I don't know how different it might be from
AS AST when you can rely on top level abstract set of OOP properties,
when ABC seems to be a stack/procedural assembler ready to talk to
virtual machine.
Does ABC has a class, method concept? or just went down to the level of
move, jump etc?
I can imagine that reverse that process to some OOP like structure you
need to back to something that will be easier to represent in JS, so you
going back to AS3 AST.
I think I get it now. But, for MXML it make sense, mxml->abc->as AST ->
js but for js target as AST-> JS is the only part we paying attention
to. Because going from mxml directly to AS or JS seems to be crazy and
less secure task.
Am I correct now in my thinking?
