Re: Tools vs Impl - Don't mix the two was [ASJS] Integration with existing JS libraries and components

[Erik de Bruin]

> Peace?

There was never anything else, as far as I'm concerned. Like you say,
questioning and challenging are part of the process. Your ideas and
questions forced me to take a second (and third) look at my solution
and convinced me that I'm on the right path to achieve what I set out
to do.

Don't worry about cultural problems communicating, us Dutch folk are
plenty used to talking to foreigners :-)

Onwards and upwards!

EdB



--
Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl

Re: Tools vs Impl - Don't mix the two was [ASJS] Integration with existing JS libraries and components

[Frank Wienberg]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Erik de Bruin  wrote:

> Mike,
>
> I was aleady afraid we were boring, or worse, bothering the community.
> I apologize for my part in it. Like you I'm more of a tool maker, as
> you know well. I do get distracted when I get the impression that my
> efforts (non-trivial, let me assure you!) are questioned and
> belittled.


Erik, in our company culture, and also at university, it is part of the
game that solutions are questioned and challenged by other solutions, in
order to end up with the best solution. This does not at all imply that a
solution is invalid, simple, stupid, and wasn't any effort to build.


> So I get on the defensive and try to educate people that
> I'm not making stuff up but actually think about and research stuff
> before I start. And I get carried away as well.


No-one is saying you didn't research, or you did a bad job. Again, I
respect your solution and find it completely valid.
But no single person can know and consider everything. That's why we work
in a community. At least that's what I thought communities are for.
So please don't take my criticism so personally. What I mainly criticize
are some of Google Closure's concepts, so there is really no reason to take
that personally, unless you work for Google and invented Closure.

Peace?

-Frank-

Re: Tools vs Impl - Don't mix the two was [ASJS] Integration with existing JS libraries and components

[Michael Schmalle]

Frank,

My comments below only were to echo the understanding of your  
experience in the AS->JS.


When I said Job it is the emitter, the emitter is the Job, meaning the  
tool(FalconJx) is used to do the Job(emit javascript). When I design  
frameworks, I make sure there are clear dividing lines between what  
does what.


So my point was, with my work on the compiler, the emitters have NO  
bearing on my development of the tool(FalconJx). I designed the  
emitters so thy are completely decouple from the compiler in that they  
don't talk to it, it hands them the AST not the other way around.


So, stepping off on the new foot, my excitement when we first met was  
real because I know how much time you have invested in this, and I  
wanted you to understand that I am listening to what you say and value  
those "dead ends". I also appriciate that you can enable us to avoid  
them as well.


I am going to get that AMD stuff working, but like I said, I have to  
understand the js before I get it. I'm putting the MXML on hold, to do  
this as I see this is more important. Plus I have other projects in my  
life that are about to light on fire as well. :)


Mike


Quoting Frank Wienberg :


On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Michael Schmalle
wrote:



Quoting Frank Wienberg :

 Hi Alain,


for Jangaroo, I answered this question here:
http://markmail.org/message/**bwjwc7sxfbertu7f
For Flex / FalconJx, it seems nobody was extremely fond of the idea to
have
to keep all the white-space and take care of generating JS code in the
exact line of the source AS code.



Ok, Do I have to start another thread with exclamation marks for everybody
to tone the  down!

I cannot believe this conversation is taking the spin it is right now,
some of the discussions the last two days have been ridiculous and serve no
constructive purpose to any of these "initiatives".

Frank, Being that I am about the only one working on FalconJx "innards"
and conceived a way to even HAVE alternate outputs (just look at FalconJS's
rats nest code), I would be offended by the above statement, if I was the
type that actually get offended, which I'm not. (I left out the "doomed"
statement)



Sorry, Mike, I surely didn't mean to offend you. If it sounded like that, I
apologize. You probably know I am not a native speaker, so maybe this got
across badly.
I just wanted to say that I brought in the Jangaroo idea to keep the
white-space, and the common reaction was that we should (at least for the
first iteration) go without that feature, to keep things simple and focused
on the main problems. I accepted that, while I admit I am still a bit
disappointed that it seems the value of this feature is not shared by
everyone. Sorry again if I got carried away.

Talking about the "doomed" statement, please don't take this out of
context. It was my reaction on Erik's answer that sounded to me like he
thinks debugging in Flash suffices (he put that right later on). I thought
you share the vision that Flex must be usable for (pure) HTML5 projects to
have a bright future. This is the reason why I support this project,
because I believe in the HTML5 platform, but it needs better development
support, which Flex could offer! I never said anything like Flex should
drop the Flash or AIR target, I just said if it does not also support
JS/HTML5 as a first class target platform, I consider it doomed (and this
is my personal judgement).



I SAID I would get you going on the output you need for "your" vision(with
line numbers if need be) of the javascript emitter.



What on earth made you think I doubt that you will do so? I marvel at your
work on FalconJx and I'm sure you are the best person to get me into it!




I have put 100's of hours into this project and will be damned if it is
doomed by squabbling over implementations. I'm a tool maker, Don't confuse
the tool with the JOB! You and Erik are bickering about the Job, I am
working on the tool, please do not confuse the two.



I don't get exactly what you mean by the "Job". The Goal? Before building a
tool, you have to know what it should be used for. Erik and I seem to have
different views on what people will use the Apache Flex tool for. I feel it
is important to at least find out that this is so, even if you cannot
settle the differences.



Well, I guess I started another thread cause I don't want this buried.

Mike



No, I don't want this to be buried, either. I am still quite new in this
community, so please forgive me if I stepped on your or somebody else's
foot. It is really hard for me, having worked on the topic AS->JS for so
many years, to not be biased toward a solution that has formed from that
experience. So I am quite passionate about some points and I still hope I
can help you (plural!) to not run into some of the dead-ends I already
visited on my journey.

Best,
-Frank-



--
Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
http://www.teotigraphix.com
http://blo

Re: Tools vs Impl - Don't mix the two was [ASJS] Integration with existing JS libraries and components

[Frank Wienberg]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Michael Schmalle
wrote:

>
> Quoting Frank Wienberg :
>
>  Hi Alain,
>>
>> for Jangaroo, I answered this question here:
>> http://markmail.org/message/**bwjwc7sxfbertu7f
>> For Flex / FalconJx, it seems nobody was extremely fond of the idea to
>> have
>> to keep all the white-space and take care of generating JS code in the
>> exact line of the source AS code.
>>
>
> Ok, Do I have to start another thread with exclamation marks for everybody
> to tone the  down!
>
> I cannot believe this conversation is taking the spin it is right now,
> some of the discussions the last two days have been ridiculous and serve no
> constructive purpose to any of these "initiatives".
>
> Frank, Being that I am about the only one working on FalconJx "innards"
> and conceived a way to even HAVE alternate outputs (just look at FalconJS's
> rats nest code), I would be offended by the above statement, if I was the
> type that actually get offended, which I'm not. (I left out the "doomed"
> statement)
>

Sorry, Mike, I surely didn't mean to offend you. If it sounded like that, I
apologize. You probably know I am not a native speaker, so maybe this got
across badly.
I just wanted to say that I brought in the Jangaroo idea to keep the
white-space, and the common reaction was that we should (at least for the
first iteration) go without that feature, to keep things simple and focused
on the main problems. I accepted that, while I admit I am still a bit
disappointed that it seems the value of this feature is not shared by
everyone. Sorry again if I got carried away.

Talking about the "doomed" statement, please don't take this out of
context. It was my reaction on Erik's answer that sounded to me like he
thinks debugging in Flash suffices (he put that right later on). I thought
you share the vision that Flex must be usable for (pure) HTML5 projects to
have a bright future. This is the reason why I support this project,
because I believe in the HTML5 platform, but it needs better development
support, which Flex could offer! I never said anything like Flex should
drop the Flash or AIR target, I just said if it does not also support
JS/HTML5 as a first class target platform, I consider it doomed (and this
is my personal judgement).


> I SAID I would get you going on the output you need for "your" vision(with
> line numbers if need be) of the javascript emitter.
>

What on earth made you think I doubt that you will do so? I marvel at your
work on FalconJx and I'm sure you are the best person to get me into it!


>
> I have put 100's of hours into this project and will be damned if it is
> doomed by squabbling over implementations. I'm a tool maker, Don't confuse
> the tool with the JOB! You and Erik are bickering about the Job, I am
> working on the tool, please do not confuse the two.
>
>
I don't get exactly what you mean by the "Job". The Goal? Before building a
tool, you have to know what it should be used for. Erik and I seem to have
different views on what people will use the Apache Flex tool for. I feel it
is important to at least find out that this is so, even if you cannot
settle the differences.


> Well, I guess I started another thread cause I don't want this buried.
>
> Mike


No, I don't want this to be buried, either. I am still quite new in this
community, so please forgive me if I stepped on your or somebody else's
foot. It is really hard for me, having worked on the topic AS->JS for so
many years, to not be biased toward a solution that has formed from that
experience. So I am quite passionate about some points and I still hope I
can help you (plural!) to not run into some of the dead-ends I already
visited on my journey.

Best,
-Frank-

Re: Tools vs Impl - Don't mix the two was [ASJS] Integration with existing JS libraries and components

[Erik de Bruin]

Mike,

I was aleady afraid we were boring, or worse, bothering the community.
I apologize for my part in it. Like you I'm more of a tool maker, as
you know well. I do get distracted when I get the impression that my
efforts (non-trivial, let me assure you!) are questioned and
belittled. So I get on the defensive and try to educate people that
I'm not making stuff up but actually think about and research stuff
before I start. And I get carried away as well.

But, I think I'm done ranting now :-)

I've just updated the build files for the Publisher to also work on
Windows, will commit those soon. Then I'm off researching another one
of my wild an inappropriate ideas for our little project :-)

EdB



On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Michael Schmalle
 wrote:
>
> Quoting Frank Wienberg :
>
>> Hi Alain,
>>
>> for Jangaroo, I answered this question here:
>> http://markmail.org/message/bwjwc7sxfbertu7f
>> For Flex / FalconJx, it seems nobody was extremely fond of the idea to
>> have
>> to keep all the white-space and take care of generating JS code in the
>> exact line of the source AS code.
>
>
> Ok, Do I have to start another thread with exclamation marks for everybody
> to tone the  down!
>
> I cannot believe this conversation is taking the spin it is right now, some
> of the discussions the last two days have been ridiculous and serve no
> constructive purpose to any of these "initiatives".
>
> Frank, Being that I am about the only one working on FalconJx "innards" and
> conceived a way to even HAVE alternate outputs (just look at FalconJS's rats
> nest code), I would be offended by the above statement, if I was the type
> that actually get offended, which I'm not. (I left out the "doomed"
> statement)
>
> I SAID I would get you going on the output you need for "your" vision(with
> line numbers if need be) of the javascript emitter.
>
> I have put 100's of hours into this project and will be damned if it is
> doomed by squabbling over implementations. I'm a tool maker, Don't confuse
> the tool with the JOB! You and Erik are bickering about the Job, I am
> working on the tool, please do not confuse the two.
>
> Well, I guess I started another thread cause I don't want this buried.
>
> Mike
>
>
> --
> Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
> http://www.teotigraphix.com
> http://blog.teotigraphix.com
>



-- 
Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl

Tools vs Impl - Don't mix the two was [ASJS] Integration with existing JS libraries and components

[Michael Schmalle]

Quoting Frank Wienberg :


Hi Alain,

for Jangaroo, I answered this question here:
http://markmail.org/message/bwjwc7sxfbertu7f
For Flex / FalconJx, it seems nobody was extremely fond of the idea to have
to keep all the white-space and take care of generating JS code in the
exact line of the source AS code.


Ok, Do I have to start another thread with exclamation marks for  
everybody to tone the  down!


I cannot believe this conversation is taking the spin it is right now,  
some of the discussions the last two days have been ridiculous and  
serve no constructive purpose to any of these "initiatives".


Frank, Being that I am about the only one working on FalconJx  
"innards" and conceived a way to even HAVE alternate outputs (just  
look at FalconJS's rats nest code), I would be offended by the above  
statement, if I was the type that actually get offended, which I'm  
not. (I left out the "doomed" statement)


I SAID I would get you going on the output you need for "your"  
vision(with line numbers if need be) of the javascript emitter.


I have put 100's of hours into this project and will be damned if it  
is doomed by squabbling over implementations. I'm a tool maker, Don't  
confuse the tool with the JOB! You and Erik are bickering about the  
Job, I am working on the tool, please do not confuse the two.


Well, I guess I started another thread cause I don't want this buried.

Mike


--
Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
http://www.teotigraphix.com
http://blog.teotigraphix.com