Don't these languages transpile their features down to ES5, where they
aren't supported natively either? Why can't we do the same for SWF output?
I think Alex was trying to suggest this, rather than dismissing you, but
maybe it wasn't clear enough.
Looking ahead, I personally see the Flash runtimes becoming less and less
important for FlexJS. For many developers, I don't see them building SWFs
ever, even for debugging (sorry Alex, but I don't think many will bother to
do that...). Most people will probably be deploying only the JS version to
production, and if we allow them to output modern JS, these features can
even be fully native.
Try not to feel too held back by Flash, Jason. We can either polyfill for
SWF or even make certain new language features JS-only.
On Oct 14, 2016 4:50 PM, "Jason Taylor" <ja...@dedoose.com> wrote:
> "TypeScript and Dart for JS all run on top of JS, so my understanding is
> that any new language constructs they offer can be implemented on top of
> Flash as well, although you might give up runtime type-checking for those
> new language features."
> How would you implement async / await and parallel programming features on
> top of flash when the flash runtime in no way supports those types of
> constructs. Again Alex you continue to dismiss these features, while those
> of us that program in these features daily will dismiss FlexJS in time if
> the future roadmap dosen't include this. It's way way way more important
> than you seem to believe.
> ~ JT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:37 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What's keeping the others from participating?
> On 10/13/16, 3:20 PM, "Jason Taylor" <ja...@dedoose.com> wrote:
> >Hi Harbs, I honestly don't see how the language can move forward when
> >the goal of FlexJS is to be able to compile to swf. As long as we are
> >stuck with that baggage implementing async / await and other parallel
> >processing operations won't be possible without breaking the swf
> >compatibility and fracturing FlexJS. That's where the crux of my
> >disagreement with the team is. I don't believe compiling to swf is
> >important in the long term, and by binding ourselves to that we are
> >limiting out future drastically. In a few years I don't think an
> >application developer will be willing to switch framework platform
> >without async / await, generics, or lamda's. I am excited about
> >FlexJS, but honestly I hope it's ported over to a better language system
> >typescript or dart. The world needs a great rapid application
> >development framework with a declarative UI language, but the world
> >dosen't need SWF's in the future.
> Compiling to SWF isn't a requirement for FlexJS. I still think it is a
> good thing so all our current SWCs can run as SWF. Having runtime
> type-checking is important as applications grow in complexity and are
> developed by remote development teams.
> But even if it was a requirement, TypeScript and Dart for JS all run on
> top of JS, so my understanding is that any new language constructs they
> offer can be implemented on top of Flash as well, although you might give
> up runtime type-checking for those new language features.
> And there is nothing stopping anyone from building a version of the
> compiler that handles TS or Dart instead of AS. Its all open-source.