Zwetan, Man o Man... dude.... you have got to lay off the Adobe Kool-Aid!! Look everything that you mentioned is about features that could possibly be implemented in the future as part of AS4. Well we want that NOW!! We don't want to wait until Adobe decides that they want to implement features they should have implemented years ago when AS3 was first born. They are slow. They take too long and they seem to be always behind in the language specification department. Also what guarantee we have that Adobe will even add these features! I mean look at their track record.... hell if they are going to have typed arrays in AS4 it'll take them 4-5 to do so? What the hell is that!! I mean honestly that is just ridiculous.
AS for HaXe, well at least Nicolas is trying to improve things by introducing a new program model and hats off to him for doing that. It's just ridiculous to say that one should not use a programming language because it doesn't have a spec. I mean common, schisms happen all the time and languages are born because of these. Following your logic, PHP, Ruby, C# wouldn't be worth using. C# especially which was born out of the wreckage that was J++, a branch of the Java programming language. Look at C# now, it's a wonderful language to code in. What bothers me about standards bodies is their lack of connection to the community they are supposed to serve. The community moves at the speed of light but standards bodies seem to move as slow as pouring honey. And unlike you seem to believe they are NOT a holy grail, and they often bungle things up. Look at the SOAP specification, that thing is so damn convoluted that people are starting to see that it's all a bunch of BS and are looking to other "renegade" specs like REST. Zwetan, I hate to say it but that kind of thinking that you are proposing stifles innovation and allows companies like Adobe to have WAY too much control over something that the community should have a lot more say over. Cheers, Sam On Sep 12, 2007, at 12:26 AM, zwetan wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
