On 12/2/12 4:36 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <apa...@teotigraphix.com> wrote:
>
> I keep looking at the current FalconJS code generator and it's way
> over my head. I couldn't contribute to it until I knew how to use a
> couple key low level features such as ABC and JBurg. For now I have no
> reason and time to invest that amount of effort.
>
> Thus, brings us back to 1 week ago when I proposed writing JS from AS
> AST. And now that you brought up, "it may not be the fastest" brings
> me to my next point.
>
> The AST route is LEGIBLE. :) I read your JsCodeGenerator and in 10
> minutes I knew exactly how you implemented it!
>
> So, do you sacrifice legibility for performance right now? Also,
> Gordon brought up ABC may produce faster JavaScript emitted code, but
> he didn't know. I guess we would only know if some wicked smart
> developers created a prototype of an AST emitter, then ran benchmarks
> against the FalconJS javascript? Right? Isn't this what you would do
> in a science lab? :)
There is no reason you can't still create your own code generator straight
off the AST. You don't have to use Jburg. Especially with respect to Java
output. For JS output, I think I'm hearing Gordon say that the Jburg
mapping may be correct and complete and everything we want to change might
be in the Reducer and Emitter.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
