Hi Harbs, don't think Alex and I was referring to do more than a copy/paste of the full text. But that's up to you. If you don't have time we can live with Google Docs. thanks
El dom., 13 ene. 2019 a las 13:10, Harbs (<[email protected]>) escribió: > I have limited time and Google Docs was easiest. > > If someone else wants to spend time making wiki entries, that’s great. > > Thanks, > Harbs > > > On Jan 13, 2019, at 12:04 PM, Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I think as well will be better to bring that document to the wiki and > > invite all people review and contribute > > Is more an "official place" > > thanks > > > > El vie., 11 ene. 2019 a las 18:46, Alex Harui (<[email protected] > >) > > escribió: > > > >> I would like to know why you are using Google Docs and not the wiki. > IMO, > >> unless folks on dev@ can follow discussion from comments in Google > Docs, > >> we should not be using Google Docs. > >> > >> IMO, structured programming constructs in AS3 separate us from most > other > >> JS app-building choices. We should be striving to make the use of > >> structure more efficient and not encouraging the use of > >> unstructured/dynamic constructs. Olaf had a good point about some of > >> these features being about writing low-level JS. Folks writing > >> future-proof apps really shouldn't be calling JS/Browser classes > directly. > >> We should be wrapping those things into proper abstractions. IOW, if > you > >> instantiate a Blob, you are giving up portability. If you instantiate a > >> BinaryData then you are not. Underneath, we can do certain things to > make > >> the writing of the platform implementation by framework developers more > >> efficient, but really, we shouldn't be encouraging users of Royale to > also > >> write to those low-level JS APIs. Otherwise, folks are likely going to > get > >> in the same trouble they are with Flex. No large app has shown up to be > >> migrated that did not use flash.*.* classes and only used Flex classes > that > >> hid the low-level Flash stuff and where those migrating used Flash, > that is > >> really holding up their migration effort. I don't think we should > >> encourage users to use low-level JS APIs and have the same problem if we > >> target something else someday. It is pretty safe to assume that every > >> future platform/runtime will support a binary array of data, but it > >> unlikely they will support initializing that class with an object > literal. > >> > >> Also, IMO, Royale is more about a toolchain/workflow than a framework. > >> Really, we are trying to be framework agnostic. We want to leverage > >> structure in the language to allow the IDEs to be better than any > >> JS-oriented IDE. > >> > >> As such, it is worth considering whether some of these ideas, especially > >> type-inferencing, should be done in the IDEs instead of the compiler. > The > >> compiler will never be fast enough, so the more we make it think on > every > >> compile, the less productive you are. Also look at really advanced IDEs > >> for structured languages. Do those JAVA IDEs support inferencing types > >> from literals? Why has the Java compiler decided not to inference types > >> from literals? At least, I don't think it does. Usually there is a > good > >> reason behind these decisions that we should consider. > >> > >> IMO, we want to put most of our energy into separating us from the pack > >> not being more like the pack. > >> > >> My 2 cents, > >> -Alex > >> > >> > >> On 1/11/19, 4:27 AM, "Harbs" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> I started a separate document with thoughts on typedefs. > >> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1gQTI08o5OJwawpludknyAX8oaa7quOZP9fridJWsKgg%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cffce206667d3415e498b08d677c015fc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636828064220720562&sdata=6RZNncFtAGeyT8hBBNXxq0G9yPI6yLDAJkUCY%2B908eg%3D&reserved=0 > >> < > >> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1gQTI08o5OJwawpludknyAX8oaa7quOZP9fridJWsKgg%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cffce206667d3415e498b08d677c015fc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636828064220720562&sdata=6RZNncFtAGeyT8hBBNXxq0G9yPI6yLDAJkUCY%2B908eg%3D&reserved=0 > >>> > >> > >> The doc is editable. Feel free to add to it and make changes and > >> corrections. > >> > >> It’s possible there is currently a way to specify source externs that > >> I’m not aware of. > >> > >> My goal with my typedef thoughts are: > >> 1. Make typedefs easier to use. > >> 2. Improve type safety and easy of use with literal objects and JSON. > >> 3. Produce reliable output even after minification. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Harbs > >> > >>> On Jan 11, 2019, at 4:39 AM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> FWIW, we already support source externs. > >>> > >>> On 1/10/19, 2:38 PM, "Harbs" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> I very much would like for AS3 to get an upgrade with features. > >> That applies to improvements I the compiler output as well as truly new > >> features in the language. > >>> > >>> I’ve started some discussion with Josh on the topic, and we > >> started a Google doc to use to help figure out how we can incrementally > >> improve things. > >>> > >>> The link to the Google Doc is here: > >> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F188AAeny3y7bht9JbuE-RXIF_adZHP5uYj0--RANpGNM%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cffce206667d3415e498b08d677c015fc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636828064220720562&sdata=zgfXOasbwzADcuofrjyY%2FL1ppCUpucngpeVQ8vhOSwY%3D&reserved=0 > >> < > >> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F188AAeny3y7bht9JbuE-RXIF_adZHP5uYj0--RANpGNM%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cffce206667d3415e498b08d677c015fc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636828064220720562&sdata=zgfXOasbwzADcuofrjyY%2FL1ppCUpucngpeVQ8vhOSwY%3D&reserved=0 > >>> > >>> > >>> I enabled commenting. If someone wants edit access to the > >> document, please let me know. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Harbs > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
