What Brendan said. Let me just add this:
Flash isn't about AS3 (particularly). It's an entire environment, event model, rich library of APIs, and a deep toolchain that allows developers to be productive. Even if we were to adopt the (foolish) goal of adding missing AS3 features to ES, that wouldn't allow Flash developers (as a group) to move seamlessly to a JS world. Flash always has been a compiler-mediated format. Their bytecode is testament to that. To the extent that there's going to be a transition strategy, I expect it to be a feature of the system that already has the user-exposed compile step (Flash), not the one that doesn't (JS). Regards On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:30 AM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > Claus Reinke wrote: > >> Hope this isn't politically inappropriate here;-) >> >> 1. Flash is dying as a browser plugin, but otherwise still alive, >> especially with compilation of Actionscript to native code [2,3]. >> >> 2. Adobe has been growing support for HTML/Javascript options. >> >> 3. Actionscript is based on an old ES draft standard that failed to >> reach consensus, partly because its changes were considered >> too much at once. [my impression - I don't have a reference] >> > > You really should read back in es-discuss if you have time (understand if > you don't!). We covered what made ES4 fail. The main problem was > namespaces, upon which packages were built. > > Unfortunately, AS3 uses namespaces and packages heavily. Mozilla's Shumway > project includes an AS3 bytecode recompiler that generates JS, and we > cannot lower namespaces to anything native and JIT-optimized in JS itself. > Cc'ing Tobias in case he can comment. > > > 4. Lots of Actionscript developers find themselves having to >> grow accustomed to the world of HTML/Javascript >> > > Developers do adapt, of course. > > > One consequence of 4 are blog posts about "Javascript technology >> X, for Flash developers". When I read such blog posts (eg, [1], with >> side-by-side comparisons of AS and JS code), I get the feeling that >> the transition would be much easier from AS3 to ES6, where things >> like modules and minimal classes exist. There is an opportunity here, >> if those parts of the standard are sufficiently stable to recommend >> transpiling (until real ES6 implementations come along). >> > > Namespaces and packages are the problems (really one problem, namespaces > making lookup three dimensional rather than two dimensions (proto and scope > chain). > > > One consequence of 3 is that there should be a vibrant community >> of AS developers who have practical experience with features similar >> to those considered for ES6, in a Javascript-like language. >> > > Not similar enough, in my view. Not only does AS3 have namespaces, it uses > them for class-private and IIRC protected visibility. IIRC AS3 classes do > not have class-side inheritance (just like Java), another difference. > > Finally, AS3 was really intended, along with an implicitly early-bound > namespace, to statically judge the meaning of names and even types. Its > code loading and global object model is entirely unlike the Web's. > > > Yet I >> do not see any experience reports or spec feedback based on that >> here on this list. Wouldn't it be very helpful to invite such input? >> > > I think not. Some of us were involved intimately in ES4. We have the scars > and remember the differences. ES6 does not need more constraints or feature > demands from newcomers. That is a sure way to kill it. > > > I don't expect Actionscript developers want to lose any of their >> language features, but there might be profit (for both AS and ES >> developers) if Adobe could try to align AS4 to ES6 so that the >> common language subsets have common syntax and semantics. >> > > That's up to Adobe, but I recall that they are talking about going more > their own way: > > http://www.kirupa.com/forum/**showthread.php?371078-** > ActionScript-quot-Next-quot-**Flash-Roadmap<http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?371078-ActionScript-quot-Next-quot-Flash-Roadmap> > > > Such a hypothetical AS4 would be a typed version of ES6, making >> it easier for Adobe's tools to support both, and making it easier >> for developers to use or maintain either. >> > > No typed (static) version can work interoperably and soundly with the > dynamic language. This was one of the conclusions of the ES4 work. How to > interface typed and untyped (dynamically typed) code is still research. Sam > Tobin-Hochstadt's Typed Racket work is one example of research along the > lines of interconnecting dynamic and static code without losing soundness. > > Even throwing out soundness may break interop. We'll see how this works > for Dart, but right now Dart is a dynamic language with an early warning > system. > > > Are there any Adobe folks listening here? Does anyone have the >> contacts to raise the question with them? Do you agree that there >> is potential for useful exchange of information and joining of >> efforts if the wall between AS and ES could be lowered? >> > > Adobe folks departed the Ecma TC39 field, although IIRC Adobe remainds a > member of www.ecma-international.org. > > Again I must comment that ES6 wants no new constraints and pressures. > Scope creep is the enemy. > > Also, you should not ignore the ES4 lessons learned or assume the problems > were not material and inherent to the divergence between AS3 and ES3. > > /be > > > ______________________________**_________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/es-discuss<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
