RIGHT ON!! -sam
On Sep 12, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Nicolas Cannasse wrote: >>> 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 _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
