[osflash] Anybody interest in developing a new compiler?

[Samuel Agesilas]

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
> osflash at osflash.org
> http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org