I am with you Mike on this in 100%.
If I can add something to it.
I would rather thing of Falcon/ FalconJS being contributed to Apache as
just a cool name. Code base? Does anybody do care these days of quality
of it?
If possible to investigate a better way of doing it, why not?
Equation was always like Adobe != Quality-of-code, They've been always
trying to get stuff done quickly and monetise it. I don't expect
anything more from them.
This is a corporation not quality control or W3C guardians. You have
opportunity to see how Flex source looks like on your own eyes.
I had no plans from very beginning to contribute to Flex itself because
I am against of the framework that over the time contributed heavily to
the bad reputation of Action Script itself. Encouraged developers to
build on top of it and act in Adobe Corp style. Get it done, monetise.
Problem is, when comes to HTML5 Adobe is no longer in control of their
runtime. You facing much wider competition and trust me, there is plenty
of solutions out there trying to do the same thing from several years.
My favourite language-> JS/HTML5. We all know that Flex has been
designed by Adobe to attract many developers from different platforms.
Why would I use Flex->JS if can take C++,C#,Java,Python,whatever ->JS?
The only way to make it happen is*not**only* to give you ability to
translate from one language to another, but offer RIA platform, reuse
existing code base, don't dump the years of work, experience and effort.
And make it *competitive*. If some day you will hear, that people using
Flex because HTML5 applications it produces are robust, snappier and
well performing it is the only reason why this whole project is worth
it. Otherwise if you just having plans to get something done, you better
put your energy into something else. Some may be short sighted here but
this very part FalconJS, that many considering as little subset for now,
is something that may even keep the Flex project alive in near future.
And just happened that here is few people capable of making it happen, I
would love to see them working together with the same goals.
Dan
On 12/14/2012 10:48 AM, Michael Schmalle wrote:
Hey,
This is great to hear. I'm kind of a hard head myself. What we are
doing is going against what the majority says is possible.
I see petitions to kill the Flash Player, uninstall it from your
browser stuff... You get where I am going with this?
Ignorant developers associate ActionScript3 with the Flash Player and
not with a very mature OOP language. With the new Falcon compiler we
have a very powerful tool to transform ActionScript into something it
has never been before, Flash Player independent. This is my vision.
It just so happens that ActionScript and JavaScript share a lot of the
same semantics on the AST level so we have a natural fit.
Erik, we need people to bridge the language gap between AS and JS. You
are acting as the translator right now. I know you are not going to
get every translation correct in the start, but you need to realize
this is going to take a few running starts to jump the divide!
To others, I am pretty satisfied with my prototype being a viable
solution to cross compile. That being said, I HAVE NO plans to work on
the older FalconJS code, its just to much of a rats nest and Adobe
left a 1/3 of code in there that has no relevance to our project.
So in my pessimistic voice, if I can't get this prototype to
eventually spit out what we need, that will be it for me. :) But, 103
granular unit tests prove I am on my way to succeeding with this design.
Mike
Quoting Chema Balsas <jbal...@gmail.com>:
Hi Erik, I'm with Mike on this one. Lead and others will follow.
I for one plan to stick around the compiler and mostly the JS
generation.
I've still to find the time to dive deep into your approach, but I'll be
working on it for sure. You can definitely count me in.
Cheers,
Chema
2012/12/14 Michael Schmalle <apa...@teotigraphix.com>
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/**<https://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/incubator/flex/whiteboard/**>
mschmalle/<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
