We must not eliminate choices. I still haven't had time to look at the branch.
There must be away to avoid even a 1K cost to those who don't need it. If there is such a way, then it is fine to merge. Otherwise, everyone is going to pay 2K to use a Vector when we know at least two apps are in production without needing that 2k. There are too many words being written and no technical points being made. I will try to resummarize. 1) It does not matter how fast your network is. Every other app will use more bandwidth and when the network gets busy or connectivity gets poor (something I see quite frequently where I live) either you get your app to run or you run out of time. 2) If you are not using some feature of our code, you should not have to pay for it in download cost. That's PAYG. That would be true for Vector, XML and even if we had to write a Date implementation. It is not an issue of non-conforming. It is an issue of optimization. If you aren't going to use some feature of E4x you should have the option of using code that doesn't have those code paths. Same for if we had to do Date. We know that if you don't need runtime-type checking and fixed-length checking that a plain Array is just fine and 2K cheaper. Let's give folks the option to do that. I will repeat that I do not have any objection to having a full Vector implementation with runtime type-checking and fixed length checking be the default choice as long as folks can optimize back to using the plain Array code we use now. For the one Vector we currently have in all apps for the Strand, it might be time to change that to an array and check the type (in debug-only code) on addBead. Either that or we add compiler options so that one Vector gets optimized to the current plain Array code. It is not a technical argument to classify Vector as "Language" and therefore somehow an exception to being optimizable. My 2 cents, -Alex On 5/28/19, 2:59 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi, I think that we all agree in most of the things, and although we're discussing some particularities on how to solve, my opinion is that those particularities can be solved after merging Language improvements branch. We all agree we need this Vector (and other improvements in this branch)?. So, after that merge folks wanting to improve, let's say, Vector(for example) even more with new choices can do that without problem and will make it even better. Are we ok with that? El mar., 28 may. 2019 a las 11:07, Harbs (<[email protected]>) escribió: > > > On May 28, 2019, at 11:12 AM, Greg Dove <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> "I personally have never used length checking in Vector. Nor was runtime > >> type checking on Vectors important to me. " > > length checking is automatic in flash. I don't know that you 'use' it... > it > > is just there. > > True. What I meant is that I never used fixed length Vectors. > > > In javascript I expect it would most often be switched off in all release > > builds, but having it on by default provides another check of something > > that could provide a vital clue to help people figuring out problems in > > code. > > So far each 'stronger typing' feature added in the last few months has > > revealed potential issues or - most often - bad code that was working > when > > it should not > > Good points, and one that argues for the ability to have these checks > while debugging and have the run-time code removed on release. > > > One thing about the mxml stuff is that it gets processed in a way that is > > untyped. > > > Agree. I do wish there was some way for MXML to be output “better” where > minified vars could “just work” and types could be better inferred from the > MXML files. -- Carlos Rovira https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ce8d86e6cf4aa4271e8ad08d6e35326eb%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636946343611259722&sdata=g8BXA5jwwT98fAbwdMR2FqmJ3CgKd01zsm1lpt5pTDg%3D&reserved=0
