On 2/7/12 6:45 AM, "Michael A. Labriola" <labri...@digitalprimates.net>
wrote:
>
> I understand your position, however, I really think that some of the byte code
> approaches could get us very maintainable code and speed of execution. That's
> why I am so interested in this approach. Honestly, with a really good
> optimizing compiler it is difficult to take final byte code and trace it back
> to original source as well.
It will come down to what you get for that optimization that breaks the
mapping from byte code to source. Even if it is 10% for 1% of the cases,
then I would say it isn't worth it, or at least, a non-default option, and
the framework needs to work well for the other 99% of the cases, and I am
saying I would drop 100% backward compatibility rather than break that
mapping.
The MSVC compiler can do inlining and tail call optimizations that greatly
speed up the kind of things I think the 99% is going to need without making
it totally impossible to map backward from bytecode to source.
So yeah, I'm all for some byte-code optimizations and some fudging of the
language rules (so you really can inline a constant), but I am still hoping
a class definition will be same everywhere so newbies have fewer things to
learn to be successful with Flex.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
