Erik,
So, unless there's people out there that are willing to
contribute to Alex's (and now my) approach to getting from AS to JS,
my time is spend better helping out on another part of the project.
Saying this kindof pisses me off. I just spent the last week writing a
compiler that will allow us to do any type of cross compile we want.
Dude, you gotta stick to your guns man! If what you decided on for the
time being is goog, the use it! Frank can have his opinion but, you
are doing something and that means you need answers which you sought
out.
If you research me a bit, I was a component developer since 2003. To
say you will not get help with the component framework is bs. I'm
right here, really how many people does it take to make something in
the world. Right mow a bunch of people would muddle stuff up.
I remember spouting the same crap back in January when I left the
project for 8 months this year. What I realized is if there was one
thing I wanted to do, it's allow AS3 to run on something other than
the Flash Player. This is my main goal, why? I have no freaking reason
other than I have to much experience in AS3 and the like to throw it
away for some "new" language, blah blah.
What I am trying to do here is make the lower level. You cannot expect
a lot of people to help out here, they just don't have a clue what is
going on. Your a leader, lead my friend and keep going, I will join up
when I get the compiler working correctly in the prototype.
Mike
Quoting Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl>:
I'm not sitting here feeling sorry for myself, I actually learned a
lot setting up the current approach. I'm just wondering if it is worth
my time to pursue this avenue when everyone else seems more interested
in going in a (as far as I understand) completely different direction.
Getting this "done" is a major project which I cannot get done on my
own. So, unless there's people out there that are willing to
contribute to Alex's (and now my) approach to getting from AS to JS,
my time is spend better helping out on another part of the project.
EdB
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
So, basically, nobody loves the "goog" approach I spend the last weeks
working on (based mostly on feedback from the various discussion on
the list).
Or, let me rephrase, nobody cares enough to contribute to it?
EdB
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Frank Wienberg <fr...@jangaroo.net> wrote:
This is great news, Mike! I will also try to dig into your code this
weekend.
In the meantime, I've been busy figuring out the "essence" of a new
JavaScript runtime format that uses the principles described in my blog,
but relies on RequireJS (not goog!) and ECMAScript 5 API, making it way
more concise than the current Jangaroo Runtime. For IE8 and other non-ES5
browsers, we would then use polyfills for all ES5 functions used.
Let's see if I can get an approval from my company to contribute; if it
takes too long, I'd blog about the concepts and you or someone else would
have to implement them.
Greetings
-Frank-
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Michael Schmalle
<apa...@teotigraphix.com>wrote:
Not really,
I rebuilt everything from scratch. Yes I copied about half the code in
pieces. I purposely put it all back together myself so I knew what was
going on. So every class in the committed code was assembled by me, to
figure out it's function if relevant to the new design.
Besides most of it had either be deleted of changed because I am not
targeting SWF what so ever.
I tried to stick with the same base implementation so we kept the
multi-threaded Falcon parsing.
Take a look at the org.apache.flex.compiler.**internal.js.codegen package.
Specifically ASBlockWalker from that class alone you should see that this
is a completely different implementation.
A note to others looking at the code, in the ASBlockWalker I have mixed
some javascript emitting specific to the closure compiler. I want
to change
this and have a base class not dependent on anything but to be able to
override it.
Case in point, most expressions and statements map the same in AS to JS,
so having a base implementation not tied to anything will be a positive
thing. I also don't like mixing design specific things in the base
traversing class, another reason why I want an abstract base or two.
Anyway, very prototype code and I reserve the right to yank things around.
:) I just wanted to get it up to show others there might be an easier and
more flexible way to get to where we need to go without the BURM.
Mike
Quoting Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>:
I will try to look this weekend.
Can you briefly describe the important files to look at? Did
you copy the
FalconJS files then do most of your work in a few of them?
Thanks,
-Alex
On 12/13/12 3:37 PM, "Michael Schmalle" <apa...@teotigraphix.com> wrote:
Hi,
Well, I spent the last 4 days working on this to where it was
something we all could start talking about.
Is it viable?, I really think so. I have spent a lot of time tinkering
with the framework, take a look. It's in my whiteboard for now under 2
Eclipse projects.
I know there was just a discussion about .project files but I
committed the .project and .classpath for both application and test
project, just like the rest of Falcon.
I'm working on more documentation. A thing to note about the code, my
goal is to product ActionScript first, I will explain my thinking
later but, since I'm the one putting this together, that is what I
decided was best for testing first. Once we get all ActionScript
generating, we start overriding things for JavaScript specific
implementations.
Source [0]
Right now I have 103 unit tests ALL passing for expressions and
statements. Its a good start.
Note; I have not don't a build file, if anybody wants to go for it.
Please, I hate them. :)
Peace,
Mike
- [0] https://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/incubator/flex/whiteboard/**
mschmalle/<https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/flex/whiteboard/mschmalle/>
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
--
Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
http://www.teotigraphix.com
http://blog.teotigraphix.com
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
--
Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
http://www.teotigraphix.com
http://blog.teotigraphix.com
