Dude, "goog" it is.
I just needed a little pep-talk, I guess ;-) EdB On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Michael Schmalle <apa...@teotigraphix.com> wrote: > 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 > -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
