Thanks Gordon for giving us some hints about Falcon's roadmap. Good luck to
you and your team and lets hope falcon's quality will reach at the
developers expectation.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Gordon Smith wrote:
> > Falcon ... will support AS3 only, with no support for MXML.
>
> This is
On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Jeffry Houser wrote:
> On 2/16/2012 11:47 AM, Omar Gonzalez wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 16, 2012, David Arno wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 05:34 -0800, Carol Frampton wrote:
Adobe's fiscal year starts in Dec so Q4 is Sept-Nov.
>>> Not wishing to shoot the
On 2/16/2012 1:00 PM, Gordon Smith wrote:
Falcon ... will support AS3 only, with no support for MXML.
This is incorrect.
Falcon *already* supports enough of MXML to compile a correctly-running version
of Checkinapp, the test app that is part of the SDK. Falcon's support for
.mxml, .css, and .
> Falcon ... will support AS3 only, with no support for MXML.
This is incorrect.
Falcon *already* supports enough of MXML to compile a correctly-running version
of Checkinapp, the test app that is part of the SDK. Falcon's support for
.mxml, .css, and .properties still needs lots of polish -- e
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 08:47 -0800, Omar Gonzalez wrote:
> Mind communicating that last thought in a clear fashion? :P I don't
> understand what your complaint is, Carol is simply explaining Adobe's time
> frame, what problem so you see in such a simple statement?
If one uses the abbreviation "Q4" w
On 2/16/2012 11:47 AM, Omar Gonzalez wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2012, David Arno wrote:
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 05:34 -0800, Carol Frampton wrote:
Adobe's fiscal year starts in Dec so Q4 is Sept-Nov.
Not wishing to shoot the messenger here, but this really does sum up
Adobe's inability to
On 17/02/2012 01:47, Omar Gonzalez wrote:
P I don't
understand what your complaint is, Carol is simply explaining Adobe's time
frame, what problem so you see in such a simple statem
I think he is saying that its marketing-wise not a great idea to use Q4
which is usually interpreted as OCT-DEC.
On Thursday, February 16, 2012, David Arno wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 05:34 -0800, Carol Frampton wrote:
>> Adobe's fiscal year starts in Dec so Q4 is Sept-Nov.
> Not wishing to shoot the messenger here, but this really does sum up
> Adobe's inability to think and communicate in a clear fashio
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 05:34 -0800, Carol Frampton wrote:
> Adobe's fiscal year starts in Dec so Q4 is Sept-Nov.
Not wishing to shoot the messenger here, but this really does sum up
Adobe's inability to think and communicate in a clear fashion... :(
David.
I believe Google plans to offer Brightly as a cloud-based IDE, which may be
one of the reasons the compiler also exists in the Cloud. It's rather neat,
if I may say so.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Martin Heidegger wrote:
> On 16/02/2012 21:49, Jarosław Szczepankiewicz wrote:
>
>> Also Dart -
> From: "Carol Frampton"
> The compiler team had absolutely no cuts last November. It was a
separate
> team from the Flex frameworks team.
>
> Carol
>
I stand corrected. Thanks for clarifying Carol.
Rui
Two clarifications. Adobe's fiscal year starts in Dec so Q4 is Sept-Nov.
The compiler team had absolutely no cuts last November. It was a separate
team from the Flex frameworks team.
Carol
On 2/16/12 7 :25AM, "Rui Silva" wrote:
>
>> From: "David Arno"
>>
>> This is not a viable timescale fo
On 16/02/2012 22:00, Roland Zwaga wrote:
he libraries needed to create an AS3 based compiler are already available,
there is as3commons-asblock
as3commons-asblocks is interesting but not a bit optimized and consumes
a lot of memory.
yours
Martin.
On 16 February 2012 13:55, Martin Heidegger wrote:
> On 16/02/2012 21:49, Jarosław Szczepankiewicz wrote:
>
>> this is my personal opinion, but what's the purpose of another flex
>> compiler from open source, especially written in as3?
>>
>
> The purpose of a compiler written in AS3 is that we ca
On 16/02/2012 21:55, Martin Heidegger wrote:
..instead of whenever necessary...
"instead of" should read "or" ...
On 16/02/2012 21:49, Jarosław Szczepankiewicz wrote:
this is my personal opinion, but what's the purpose of another flex
compiler from open source, especially written in as3?
The purpose of a compiler written in AS3 is that we can compile code on
the fly instead of whenever necessary. This abi
i'm definitely in.
as3 and mxml to swf is a must, compile to js would be great for webapps,
but I'd like to see this
multitarget approach targeting other platforms too, expecially c\c++.
if flash\air doesn't run in the platform my project is targeting i would be
enabled to reuse my code and
convert
this is my personal opinion, but what's the purpose of another flex
compiler from open source, especially written in as3?
- will it be faster than mxmlc / fcsh / falcon?
- will it better support multicore architectures / really big projects?
- will it produce better / optimised optocode than mxmlc
Also: There is the haXe compiler that already compiles a AS3 like
language to swf and javascript.
I guess it would be possible in less than 5 months to add AS3, metadata
and xml support in that mix.
yours
Martin.
On 16/02/2012 21:25, Rui Silva wrote:
From: "David Arno"
This is not a viable t
I really agree with Rui. I believe it will be a waste of time, because even
if Adobe will donate it at the beginning of 2013, I'm pretty sure that when
they will have a stable solution it will be provided to all developers,
even if is only AS3 and not MXML.
And if your target is mobile or web, you
On 16/02/2012 21:25, Rui Silva wrote:
Though I'm generally available for any work that this group decides to
undertake, I really do not see this as a viable solution. Do you truly
believe that we (considering most of us are Flex developers with
little or no expertise in compiler development) co
> From: "David Arno"
>
> This is not a viable timescale for Apache Flex in my opinion. Therefore
> I feel we have no choice but to ignore Falcon and to start developing
> our own compiler with immediate effect. I therefore want to get an idea
> as to who, if anyone, here is interested in getting
Today I played around with a AS3 As3 compiler
yours
Martin.
>
> > This is not a viable timescale for Apache Flex in my opinion. Therefore
> > I feel we have no choice but to ignore Falcon and to start developing
> > our own compiler with immediate effect. I therefore want to get an idea
> > as to who, if anyone, here is interested in getting involved in thi
2012/2/16 David Arno :
> Yesterday Adobe published their "whitepaper" on the future of Flex. In
> it, they state that they'll be contributing the Falcon compiler to
> Apache sometime between October and December. This compiler will support
> AS3 only, with no support for MXML. So when we get the co
25 matches
Mail list logo
