on a related note: http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html
:) On 5 February 2013 11:37, Michael Schmalle <apa...@teotigraphix.com> wrote: > There is a simple answer to this. > > Keep AS3, it's a language name, not a product. Flex is a product, if you > want to do something, change the image of Flex. We have a new name, Falcon > AS3. > > Evolution just happens. My work with the compiler is meant to empower the > next generation of devs that want a tried and true OOP language to work > with JavaScript and HTML5. > > I already have some prototypes of pretty amazing things on this cross > compiling front. There is no majic or marketing that creates new things, > people that go to school for advertising are different from those that > invent the things the advertisers will market. > > You want to know why there is so much crap technology right now? It's > because there are more advertisers then engineers in the steering the ship. > > Rant over, my work here has nothing to do with Flex, it has to do with > creating a stable future for a language that has more than 10 years proved > itself as agile and understandable. > > Mike > > > > > Quoting Frank Pepermans <frankp...@hotmail.com>: > > >> Pros :- Actionscript and Flash are the same thing to the outside world, >> Flex goes beyond Flash- Adobe will market AS as a language for games and >> video, not officially for Flex enterprise apps, this is confusing and to be >> honest casts a shadow over Flex which we cannot do anything about... >> Cons :- AS is well known, a new language name needs time to be known in >> the industry, will take more time to get Flex out on the job market- Yet >> another language, never sits well, people will question why no existing >> language is used (even if it's an AS dialect, in years they might both >> evolve differently) >> >> >> >> >> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:45:46 +0100 >>> Subject: Re: Language features >>> From: rol...@stackandheap.com >>> To: dev@flex.apache.org >>> >>> by the way, with all this type of language features, it'll be interesting >>> to see >>> what Adobe is going to with ASC2.0 on their end. >>> They reported here on the list that they'd be developing ASC separately >>> since >>> it would focus on AS.Next. But with their last announcement they have >>> indicated >>> that the AVM2 will remain their focus. Which means AS3 as well, I >>> suppose. >>> So, as we are adding language features, does that mean there is going to >>> be >>> two versions of AS3? Apache AS3 and Adobe AS3? >>> >>> So, when we do add features, should we make an official name change to >>> the >>> language? >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> >>> On 5 February 2013 05:22, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <nicho...@spoon.as> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > I was under the impression that they updated the AMF protocol to >>> support >>> > Vector... I'm not remembering /where/ I read that, but I remember them >>> > saying it was coming... >>> > >>> > -Nick >>> > >>> > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Tianzhen Lin <tang...@usa.net> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Besides strongly-typed dictionary, adding generic support would >>> bring the >>> > > language to a more reusable state, so we can say good-bye to >>> > > ArrayCollection, but List<MyType>. >>> > > >>> > > Additionally, if the AMF also supports generics, that would complete >>> the >>> > > whole picture. Currently Vector is not supported in AMF, making it >>> > > inconvenient to pass through the wire. >>> > > >>> > > Tangent >>> > > >>> > > http://tangentlin.wordpress.**com/<http://tangentlin.wordpress.com/> >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > -----Original Message----- >>> > > From: Frédéric THOMAS >>> > > [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.**com<webdoubl...@hotmail.com> >>> ] >>> > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 12:50 PM >>> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org >>> > > Subject: Re: Language features >>> > > >>> > > Btw, maybe strongly-typed Dictionary as well :) >>> > > >>> > > -Fred >>> > > >>> > > -----Message d'origine----- >>> > > From: Frédéric THOMAS >>> > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:05 PM >>> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org >>> > > Subject: Re: Language features >>> > > >>> > > Hi Gordon, >>> > > >>> > > > Adding abstract classes and private constructors to Falcon should >>> be >>> > > > easy >>> > > >>> > > That's a good news, at this point protected constructor would be >>> welcomed >>> > > as well as private constructors are commonly used in classes that >>> contain >>> > > static members only. >>> > > >>> > > And I voting +1 for the rest :-) you gonna make happy a lot of >>> people who >>> > > wait for a long time for these features. >>> > > >>> > > -Fred >>> > > >>> > > -----Message d'origine----- >>> > > From: Gordon Smith >>> > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 7:38 PM >>> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org >>> > > Subject: RE: Language features >>> > > >>> > > Adding abstract classes and private constructors to Falcon should be >>> > easy. >>> > > Adding generics and method overloading would be considerably harder >>> but >>> > > probably doable after a lot of design. Two other features worth >>> > considering >>> > > are strong function types (i.e., a type like (int, int):String for a >>> > > function that takes two ints and returns a String) and strongly-typed >>> > fixed >>> > > arrays (i.e., int[]). >>> > > >>> > > I'm going to continue to focus on MXML. Until it is finished, we >>> can't >>> > > move from the old compiler to the new one. I don't recommend making >>> any >>> > > modifications to the old compiler. >>> > > >>> > > - Gordon >>> > > >>> > > -----Original Message----- >>> > > From: Frédéric THOMAS >>> > > [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.**com<webdoubl...@hotmail.com> >>> ] >>> > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 3:07 AM >>> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org >>> > > Subject: Re: Language features >>> > > >>> > > +1 Nick >>> > > >>> > > May be possible, I don't know, time ago, I looked at adding the >>> > > possibility to have the constructor accepting other NS than public to >>> > > simulate abstract classes and seen 2 places where it was checked but >>> > didn't >>> > > dare to change it besause I didn't know the impacts, I hope someone >>> > better >>> > > than me here can take care of it, compiler geeks, are you here ? >>> > > >>> > > -Fred >>> > > >>> > > -----Message d'origine----- >>> > > From: Nick Collins >>> > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 11:24 AM >>> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org >>> > > Subject: Language features >>> > > >>> > > With the cancellation of AVM next, should we perhaps look at adding >>> some >>> > > additional language features to our compiler? >>> > > >>> > > As I think about some of the features I would like to see, such as >>> > > abstract classes, generics, method overloading, etc. it seems to me >>> that >>> > at >>> > > least some of them could be implemented into our compiler? >>> > > >>> > > Nick >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> regards, >>> Roland >>> >>> -- >>> Roland Zwaga >>> Senior Consultant | Stack & Heap BVBA >>> >>> +32 (0)486 16 12 62 | rol...@stackandheap.com | >>> http://www.stackandheap.com >>> >>> http://zwaga.blogspot.com >>> http://www.springactionscript.**org <http://www.springactionscript.org> >>> http://www.as3commons.org >>> >> >> > -- > Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC > http://www.teotigraphix.com > http://blog.teotigraphix.com > > -- regards, Roland -- Roland Zwaga Senior Consultant | Stack & Heap BVBA +32 (0)486 16 12 62 | rol...@stackandheap.com | http://www.stackandheap.com http://zwaga.blogspot.com http://www.springactionscript.org http://www.as3commons.org
