This sounds like a very reasonable strategy to me, ie. continue supporting (as long as makes sense) the current AS3/Flash VM solution and concurrently work towards a AS3 --> JS solution to remove the Adobe dependency and possibly re-architect the.
On 21.11.2012, at 21:04, Alex Harui wrote: > On 11/21/12 12:53 PM, "Kevin Newman" <capta...@unfocus.com> wrote: > >> But if we are to change languages, why not go with a language that, >> looks a lot like AS3 (and ports easy), addresses the language >> scalability issues of JavaScript (lack of classes, typing, a compiler, >> etc.), and can compile to JS as well as other languages? Haxe can be >> compiled into JS, ABC/SWF, C++, C#, etc. > My angle for now is not to change languages. We can write in AS3 and > cross-compile to JS and maybe other languages. Apache Flex effectively owns > AS3 because it owns a compiler for it. > >> Why NOT use Haxe? > -Haxe is not in Apache. > -There are lots of existing AS3 code libraries I think we should try to > leverage. > -I know how AS3 behaves on Flash. > > But again, none of these, even in aggregate, are strong enough reasons to > a-priori say that some other group of folks shouldn't pursue a rewrite on > Haxe. > > -- > Alex Harui > Flex SDK Team > Adobe Systems, Inc. > http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui >
