My reasons for supporting SWF as a target platform are: 1) The edit/compile/debug cycle was a bit faster than edit/transpile/debug. But this may not be true anymore 2) A Flash version used to require less testing and bug fixing across different browsers. But that may not be true anymore. 3) The Flash Runtime has a verifier and runtime type-checking. These features are very useful in large projects 4) It helped make sure that FlexJS didn't "commit" itself to a particular platform. You may be focused on JS now, but you never know when some new hot platform will come along.
I was about to answer Josh in another thread, but for sure, FlexJS doesn't require that SWCs support Flash targets. I just think it is worth it right now so you have the option to choose the productivity gains of using runtime verifier and type-checker. My early guess was that some of our customers did have the option to deploy SWF versions and would want to enjoy the benefit of less testing across browsers, so I am spending time on trying to have the same visuals on both target platforms, but some folks may just use "mock" UI widgets and just use the SWF version for testing their business logic. In case folks are wondering how the verifier and type-checker helps, here are two examples: 1) You are working on the main app, and another developer is working on a module. You change an interface API to add an additional parameter. Your colleague doesn't. When you load your colleague's module at runtime, the Flash runtime will tell you that the module doesn't match the expected interface contract. If you didn't find that out then, in JS, how much longer would it be before you find out? 2) When you have arrays of objects, you can then write: var foo:SomeClass = arr[i]; In Flash, you will find out right away that arr[i] isn't a SomeClass. In the browser, the assignment will just happen. So anyway, we'll make progress on the two platforms and hopefully someday other platforms as folks have energy and desire to spend on it. There is no obligation to have to keep the platforms in sync. My 2 cents, -Alex On 10/16/16, 10:10 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira" <carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> wrote: >Hi, > >somedays ago we talked in other thread about the actual importance of SWF >output. I must to admit that my actual goals are around JS output since is >the most needed, and was thinking that maybe even SWF output could be no >longer needed in the future. > >Today, my perspective turn completely talking with other devs about past >HTML experiences and FlexJS future. The main reason is poor mobile html >performance with actual JS frameworks, something that FlexJS html should >has the same problem too. > >Actual HTML Apps built with Angular, React and other HTML5/JS frameworks >are not performant in mobile device browsers like Flash (Stage3D) could >perform (like Feathers) encapsulated as mobile apps. > >So I think although my priorities has not change and I want to get HTML/JS >output first, I think SWF output (based on Stage3D) comes as a real >interesting point for FlexJS in the future. > >What do you think? > > >-- > >Carlos Rovira >Director General >M: +34 607 22 60 05 >http://www.codeoscopic.com >http://www.avant2.es > > >Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener >información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este mensaje por >error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y >proceda a su destrucción. > >De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le >comunicamos >que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es CODEOSCOPIC >S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la prestación del >servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de acceso, >rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos dirigiéndose a >nuestras >oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la documentación >necesaria.