I agree with the plentiful. Seems to me in the last year with AJAX vs Flash Player(Flex,AIR), there has been one thing that seems to divide the developers, design patterns and familiarity. Albeit, you can almost create the same functional application in either of each language but, Adobe seems to have voted for a more 'structural' approach to advocating web application development with their Flash Player(Flex/AIR).
Knowing Java, php5(using new class attributes and structure) and AS3 very well, I feel awkward when needing to write javascript for something. I am not at all saying which is best, most that know, know each suites it's own purpose well. I know in my own personal experience, I really like AS3's encapsulated packages, type checking and structured inheritance. The most important thing for me is, Adobe from the start wanted to follow the 'New way of doing things' (joint collaboration) standard setting approach. This in turn has created a language that fits into a lot of developer's thought train. From here, they can just build on what solid 'standard' they have already jointly been working on. Mike On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:09 PM, actionscript_czar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Now that I've had time to think about this, it seems like it could > really be a good thing. Adobe chose to link itself to the > ECMAscript4 standard and from many responses I've read it guided > their decisions on whether or not to do things ( private constructors > anyone? ). > > Perhaps now Actionscript can move in a new direction that allows some > things that weren't going to be in the ES4 standard. Perhaps > actionscript will link itself with some other future standard. The > possibilities are plentiful. > > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>, "hank > williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Johannes Nel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > annotations, packages what else? > > > > > > > We dont know precisely, but Brendan Eich is telegraphing that it is > > big steps backwards by saying the following: > > > > 1. Focus work on ES3.1 with full collaboration of all parties, and > > target two interoperable implementations by early next year. > > 2. Collaborate on the next step beyond ES3.1, which will include > > syntactic extensions but which will be more modest than ES4 in both > > semantic and syntactic innovation. > > 3. Some ES4 proposals have been deemed unsound for the Web, and are > > off the table for good: packages, namespaces and early binding. This > > conclusion is key to Harmony. > > 4. Other goals and ideas from ES4 are being rephrased to keep > > consensus in the committee; these include a notion of classes based > > on existing ES3 concepts combined with proposed ES3.1 extensions. > > > > > > To me #4 the idea that classes work "the old way" is also a big > deal, > > though exactly what that means I am not entirely sure. AS3 changed > its > > class model in what I think was a good way. I'd hate to go back. > > > > Hank > > > > > -- Teoti Graphix, LLC http://www.teotigraphix.com Teoti Graphix Blog http://www.blog.teotigraphix.com You can find more by solving the problem then by 'asking the question'.
