Ok Update. I have been researching TypeScript and it's output, this is what I am doing. For some reason this "just" makes sense to me and the are 100's of examples I can use to test the code generation against.
Josh, I would say if you want to start experimenting with your framework, use what you just showed me as a base and I can meet you in the middle, then we can figure our the quirks together. I will/am start/ing working on this ASAP. Mike On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Michael Schmalle <teotigraphix...@gmail.com > wrote: > Ok, > > I am a doer... :) Since this is all POC right now and I am up to learn > some JS, I will use this as a format. I have done this JSEmitter 2 times > now so the 3rd isn't going to be that hard, maybe the charm for me to. > > Note, most of the expressions and statements are already done. As noted, > inheritance, scope and set/get always are the pains but if I have a target > output protocol like TypeScript's output, why not emulate it. > > Alex, I know what you are thinking... Don't. :) My gut feeling is, if I > start from the ground up and have NO dependencies on anything, I will do > this twice as fast. I am very good at refactoring so once I have tests > working on the generated .js, we can see what could be abstracted to and > from this emitter and FlexJS. > > I really think for my own sanity, I need to start in isolation and not get > in FlexJS's way either, that is another pro for me, no commit conflicts, > nothing of that nature. > > Thoughts Josh, Alex? > > Mike > > > > > > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> When I played with TypeScript, I loved that I could subclass CreateJS >> prototypes very easily. As long as something like that is possible from >> ActionScript (assuming I could provide a SWC or something for CreateJS or >> whichever library I want to use), I don't have too strong of an opinion on >> how the final JavaScript looks. >> >> I'll just say that I like the clean code that the TypeScript compiler >> outputs. To me, it looked pretty much like what I might write manually, if >> I were using vanilla JavaScript. Looking at the TypeScript playground, the >> Inheritance example and the Modules example both look very nice. >> >> http://www.typescriptlang.org/Playground >> >> - Josh >> >> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Michael Schmalle < >> teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> > >> > > New thread: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On 5/27/15, 9:52 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <teotigraphix...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > >Well, when I said "teach" I just meant getting into the code. >> Really, I >> > > >know the base part of the compiler and the walker/visitor framework >> well >> > > >;-), so getting FalconJX to use an HTML.swc would be exactly what I >> am >> > > >looking for to do. >> > > > >> > > >This is where you can keep doing what you are good at and I can work >> on >> > > >what I am good at(code rendering). >> > > > >> > > >Can I ask you to start another thread and outline what you see needs >> to >> > be >> > > >done to accomplish what is in your mind dealing with FalconJX and the >> > > >HTML.swc? If you can just brainstorm, then I can ask you questions to >> > fill >> > > >in the gaps that I am not seeing. >> > > > >> > > >> > > As I see it, FalconJX should just be able to grab some SWCs and >> > > cross-compile some AS based on definitions in the SWCs. Right now we >> > feed >> > > it playerglobal/airglobal and FlexJS swcs with UIBase widgets, but in >> > > theory, as Josh suggests we should be able to replace those SWCs with >> > just: >> > > >> > > jsglobal.swc: >> > > Object >> > > Number >> > > String >> > > <what else>? >> > > >> > > HTML.swc: >> > > Window >> > > Event >> > > UIEvent >> > > MouseEvent >> > > HTMLElement >> > > etc. >> > > >> > > >> > See for HTML lib, Roland used WebIDL parser to create it; >> > >> > https://github.com/RandoriAS/randori-libraries/tree/master/HTMLCoreLib >> > >> > The builtin.swc we made; >> > >> > https://github.com/RandoriAS/randori-tools/tree/develop/RandoriBuiltin >> > >> > Read the README, does this violate anything? >> > >> > >> > >> > > Then folks should be able to test drive FalconJX by running some AS >> > > through it to get any JS they normally use in their web apps, and we >> > > should be able to stop writing any JS at all. All files in flex-asjs >> > that >> > > are currently .JS files should be able to be written in AS and >> > > cross-compiled with only those two SWCs. I can tell you that it would >> > > probably have saved us much time if we had this already. It is >> painful >> > > doing .JS code simply in the writing of ‘this.’ and ‘prototype’. >> > > >> > >> > Yeah, not to mention compile time checking. :) >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > Anyway, that’s as far as I’ve thought on this subject. As you said in >> > > another thread this is where we’d have to prove there are no >> hard-coded >> > > dependencies in Falcon/FalconJX on playerglobal/airglobal. >> > > >> > >> > >> > See the above links and give feedback on what you think. >> > >> > >> > > >> > > OK, one more thought: there may be reverse-engineering issues about >> > > replacing playerglobal/airglobal, but I was hoping we might find some >> > > Tamarin code laying around that has what we’d start with for >> > jsglobal.swc. >> > > >> > >> > I think this is what Roland actually did, I know he found it some >> where(how >> > to build the builtin.swc Randori used). >> > >> > >> > Question; So the code style, you said we might use the FlexJS emitter >> but I >> > don't see how that is possible since it's not a vanilla emitter. >> > >> > It seems to me I need to know the exact code style that a vanilla >> > transpiler will create and I can make that emitter as another backend, >> what >> > do you think? >> > >> > @Josj you have any thoughts? I am ready to start writing it. :) >> > >> > Mike >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > -Alex >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >
