>> 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,
I didn't say that was not useful, I said that there is a lot more useful features that are not in the language right now. > 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 I would say that's a matter of taste. #ifdef is a lot more powerful when you want to do debugging, because the code is completely removed from the SWF when you compile. > you should definitively spend more time on the ES4 wiki > > you missed that > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:type_parameters [...] I did spent some time on the wiki, and I already had some talks with Brendan Eich. As for as I know, all of these are "proposals" that are not yet part of the current specification. You're lucky if you can wait a few years (AS4,AS5, or AS6) to get these features. As for my company, we need them right now, and that's why we made haXe. > 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 So what you're saying is : - AS3 is not 100% compatible with ES4 - ES4 is not yet finished - there will be an AS4 in the future, with incompatible changes wrt 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) Most of the programming languages don't have a specification. Some popular examples are perl, php, ruby, ... Saying that they are not worth learning because of this seems a bit strange at least. Specifications are in generaly made by commercial vendors in order to be able to develop different compilers that can interop with each other. The truth is that most languages having an open source compiler doesn't need a specification since there's one single compiler available for everyone. Also, all the programming languages are developed by people that made choices about what to add or not to the language, with a rationale behind each choice. I don't see how a specification change something about this. You're of course welcome to disagree with the set of features that makes the haXe language, and not use it because of this. Simply, doesn't trash other people work for your own pleasure without any meaningful argument. And also stop the FUD with MTASC. Nicolas _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
