On 9/11/07, Nicolas Cannasse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 8 and lower) or AVM2(Flash 9). I think a Flash 9 is needed. While > >> Actionscript 3 is a great improvement it's a far cry from far more > >> mature and professional languages like Objective C, C# or even Java. > > > > oh really ? > > and on what basis are you asserting that ? > > I would say that common sense is enough.
that's quite an argument indeed... > > Clearly, AS3 chose to implement some rather unorthodox features (such as > namespaces) but neglected some interesting features that have been > available in highlevel languages for decades and have been proved very > useful in practice. > AS3 didn't chose this, the ECMA TG1 did but still you may find this namespace feature not usefull, others does not have necessary the same opinion wether the feature is unorthodox or not... http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:namespace_shadowing http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:program_configuration using namespace to configure a program is much better than to use #define, #ifdef and #undef for one good example about using that unorthodox feature > A few examples : generics (typed arrays), iterators, strictly typed > functions, polymorphism, anonymous objects, type inference, enums... > you should definitively spend more time on the ES4 wiki you missed that http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:type_parameters and that http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:iterators_and_generators http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=spec:chapter_6_types#iterator_types and also that http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:structural_types_and_typing_of_initializers http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=spec:chapter_6_types#structural_types > Now, there are two possibilities : > > a) AS3 is the next big thing, and all the research done in > programming language for years is worth nothing, and all the great > people working on C#, Java, etc are wrong about thinking programmers > need these features. > > b) something is wrong with AS3 > > IMHO, I would favor to the (b) solution. no something is wrong with your argumentation, you're judging the AS3 language features set, totally ignoring that AS3 is based on ES4 early spec and that in a futur we will have AS4 hopefully based on the final ES4 spec it's like all the whinners complaining about "bouhouhou you don't have private class in AS3, it sucks" they just don't realize that Adobe decided on purpose to avoid to add features to AS3 that will end to be incompatible with the final ES4 spec they did a pretty good job even if some incompabilities will remain http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=clarification:adobe_as3 > > Now, if you look for example at haXe from a programming language > features point of view, you'll find a mature and professional language > that targets Flash Player 6-9 and offer far more possibilities than AS3. > yeah right... we already got this discussion numerous times no, I will not use or even study a language that is not based on a specification it's just a pure waste of time ( I mean a real spec, not a I-add-any-feature-that-I-want-when-I-feel-to spec) you may dish AS3, but there is no way that haXe will approach even remotely the features set of ES4 that will then be implemented as AS4, from a programming language features point of view. people may not see it yet (or try to deny it) but the ECMAScript 4 specification IS the next big language ( http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2007/02/next-big-language.html ) so please don't try to sell me haXe, when I know ES4/AS4/JS2 is coming :) zwetan _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
