Yeah, I think many of us wish we could build a portfolio of products that
we could sell many times, but FOSS and technology in general is making
many things free or so cheap that a lot of folks have to give up on
selling products and turn to selling services, supplies or accessories
instead. And s
I am just being devils advocate with my own mind.
I really don't have interest in talking about language features. :)
You have to realize, from my end, it's a black box with "all these
companies". I mean I only have so much time and there is a fine line that I
can give of my time for free to let
On 6/3/15, 8:04 AM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote:
>No I just meant there will never be an AS4.(generics, first class
>metadata,
>method overloading types, things other languages are getting, just look at
>Java8). They kewn they had to give an option of lambda functions because
>sometimes Java is ju
No I just meant there will never be an AS4.(generics, first class metadata,
method overloading types, things other languages are getting, just look at
Java8). They kewn they had to give an option of lambda functions because
sometimes Java is just to verbose to do simple things, AS3 can be looked at
On 6/3/15, 3:03 AM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Frédéric THOMAS
>wrote:
>
>> > >From my perspective FlexJS AND FalconJX(vanilla), specifically the
>>AS3
>> > >language has an up hill battle because, we are not evolving the
>>language
>> > >like TypeScript and suc
piler engineers that get paid bank to work on it like
that from my perspective, it's not something I could do(SWF).
If in any way we wanted to add/change the AST it would break everything
down the chain until it all was updated.
Mike
>
> Frédéric THOMAS
>
> > From: aha...@adobe.com
ces.
Java is here since 1985 IIRC and has more than 3 people working on the
compiler, it evolved a lot :-)
Frédéric THOMAS
> From: aha...@adobe.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [FalconJX] FlexJS as to js work
> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 00:37:08 +
>
>
>
&g
FDB commands to know where it is.
Frédéric THOMAS
> From: aha...@adobe.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [FalconJX] FlexJS as to js work
> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:11:46 +
>
>
>
> On 6/2/15, 2:59 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" wrote:
>
> >>Any
On 6/2/15, 4:48 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote:
>> I wish we could get more help from them.
>
>Sad but I am sure a true fact, companies go after the market share and I
>don't think IJ takes FlexJS seriously. I am a man of honesty and that is
>the way I see it.
True. But often, selling upgrades
> I wish we could get more help from them.
Sad but I am sure a true fact, companies go after the market share and I
don't think IJ takes FlexJS seriously. I am a man of honesty and that is
the way I see it.
I have had a couple people ask me why I am bothering with an out dated
tech. I just laugh
I like doing Java work in Eclipse but I’d use any IDE if we needed to
standardize on one. I’m trying to get FlexJS to work in FB because I
think a lot of people have it. I’m told that getting Eclipse to support
AS is difficult.
I’m open to making changes to the way we package FlexJS to make the
BTW, I used to be a DIE HARD Eclipse guy, slowly I got pissed off enough
during Android and gradel dev the last two years I finally laid down my
sword for Eclipse. Once I learned the new key shortcuts I never looked back.
Ironically, now all the compiler work I am doing is in freakin Eclipse!
Mik
Well, I only have 4.6 so I can say for sure either. IJ rocks for AS and JS
dev, truly it does... :)
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
> On 6/2/15, 4:26 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote:
>
> >Yes, you can specify more than one, it has a completely different setup
> >and
> >you ca
On 6/2/15, 4:26 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote:
>Yes, you can specify more than one, it has a completely different setup
>and
>you can add folders as just library source, not raw source. I did that
>when
>I initially setup FlexJS in IJ for "dev". I added all the src/as js/ asjs
>and it resolves a
Yes, you can specify more than one, it has a completely different setup and
you can add folders as just library source, not raw source. I did that when
I initially setup FlexJS in IJ for "dev". I added all the src/as js/ asjs
and it resolves all of them no problem in the same root.
I assume you ar
On 6/2/15, 2:59 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" wrote:
>>Anyway, do you happen to know how IJ associates source with SWCs for
>> debugging? FB would rather we put #1 and #3 in the same source folder,
>> but that makes describing what gets cross-compiled to JS more difficult.
>> We could make COMPJSC sma
ed, it will show a native representation where you can still
associate sources.
Is that what you want to know ?
Frédéric THOMAS
> From: aha...@adobe.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [FalconJX] FlexJS as to js work
> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 18:15:20 +
>
>
&g
FYI, I spent quite a bit of time on this, now it's back to reality for
me(work). I put some JIRA issues for myself so I wouldn't forget stuff.
If you have anything else, add a JIRA issue in FalconJX component, I have a
filter for it.
Mike
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
>
On 6/2/15, 12:06 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 6/2/15, 10:38 AM, "Michael Schmalle"
>>wrote:
>>>
>> >3. flexjs_wrapper can't exist on Element, it's not dynamic, does it
>>nee to
>> >be dynamic or do we just use array access?
>>
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
> On 6/2/15, 10:38 AM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote:
>
> >A couple questions;
>
> >
> >2. Running into problems with interfaces, if we use DOM,
> >HTMLElementWrapper.element needs to be Element not Object correct? If not,
> >you don't key code co
>
> On 6/2/15, 11:45 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>
> >I think the best solution, 'goog' safe, would be to define the field on
> >the
> >prototype (with all the proper JSDoc annotations) and then initialize it
> >in
> >the constructor.
>
> Works for me as well. Can you confirm that Google Closure d
On 6/2/15, 11:45 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>I think the best solution, 'goog' safe, would be to define the field on
>the
>prototype (with all the proper JSDoc annotations) and then initialize it
>in
>the constructor.
Works for me as well. Can you confirm that Google Closure doesn’t really
ca
On 6/2/15, 11:40 AM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>> Did I put the private vars in the constructor? I could swear I got that
>> pattern from someone else. I’m totally fine with changing it. But we
>> have to take care of the "shared non-scal
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> OK, thanks for verifying. And I think in AS, the array is not shared.
>
> So I think Mike has two choices:
> 1) initialize everything in the constructor
> 2) be smart about what can be initialized in the constructor vs the
> prototype.
>
> I’ll
I think the best solution, 'goog' safe, would be to define the field on the
prototype (with all the proper JSDoc annotations) and then initialize it in
the constructor.
EdB
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> OK, thanks for verifying. And I think in AS, the array is not share
OK, thanks for verifying. And I think in AS, the array is not shared.
So I think Mike has two choices:
1) initialize everything in the constructor
2) be smart about what can be initialized in the constructor vs the
prototype.
I’ll leave it up to Mike to decide. We can always be smarter later.
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Did I put the private vars in the constructor? I could swear I got that
> pattern from someone else. I’m totally fine with changing it. But we
> have to take care of the "shared non-scalar initializer" scenario.
>
I vaguely remember this pat
> Then all instances share the one array...
>>
>
> That sounds not right. I'll have to do some experimenting to disprove
> that, but it just doesn't ring true.
>
Oh. Well, I guess you learn every day :-) A quick 'JSFiddle' shows that
they indeed seem to share the same array :-(
No more time to lo
On 6/2/15, 11:25 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>>
>> We’ll have to see if Erik or others with more JS and Goog experience can
>> answer that. IIRC, in just vanilla JS, a private member would be on the
>> prototype and some other thing like an annotation would try to keep
>>people
>> from using it
Did I put the private vars in the constructor? I could swear I got that
pattern from someone else. I’m totally fine with changing it. But we
have to take care of the "shared non-scalar initializer" scenario.
On 6/2/15, 11:12 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>Yeah... early days, I guess. UIBase has
>
> We’ll have to see if Erik or others with more JS and Goog experience can
> answer that. IIRC, in just vanilla JS, a private member would be on the
> prototype and some other thing like an annotation would try to keep people
> from using it outside the class via some compile-time checking. How
Yeah... early days, I guess. UIBase has been around for a while.
Progressive insight and all ;-)
EdB
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Michael Schmalle
wrote:
> Ok, I only asked because I was looking at UIBase.js that Alex wrote and he
> doesn't declare prototypes only type declarations in the
On 6/2/15, 10:38 AM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote:
>A couple questions;
>
>1. It doesn't look like you have private fields implemented to be emitted
>in the constructor? private fileds are going to the prototype. For
>instance;
>
>private var explicitWidth:Number = NaN;
>
>to
>
>/**
>* @private
>*
Ok, I only asked because I was looking at UIBase.js that Alex wrote and he
doesn't declare prototypes only type declarations in the constructor.
Mike
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> >
> > 1. It doesn't look like you have private fields implemented to be emitted
> > in the
>
> 1. It doesn't look like you have private fields implemented to be emitted
> in the constructor? private fileds are going to the prototype. For
> instance;
>
> private var explicitWidth:Number = NaN;
>
> to
>
> /**
> * @private
> * @type {number}
> */
> this.explicitWidth_ = NaN;
>
> Is this som
A couple questions;
1. It doesn't look like you have private fields implemented to be emitted
in the constructor? private fileds are going to the prototype. For instance;
private var explicitWidth:Number = NaN;
to
/**
* @private
* @type {number}
*/
this.explicitWidth_ = NaN;
Is this something
36 matches
Mail list logo
