What has changed with FlexJS and Falcon in the last months?

[Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>]

Hi,


has anything significantly changed with FlexJS and Falcon from a packaging point of view?

I had thought that I head Alex say that JBurg was taken out of Falcon to make it more understandable ... is that true or was that a memory of a dream? I could see the jburg jar is still downloaded ...


I guess with FlexJS a lot has changed, but did that have an effect on the generated artifacts or are the changes related to the artifacts content and how the compiler deals with it?


Really want to get this stuff up and running :-)


Chris

Re: What has changed with FlexJS and Falcon in the last months?

[Michael Schmalle <te...@gmail.com>]

Haha, this would be a full time job to do that Alex. :)

Mike

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:

> I also remembered this morning that I speculated on the impact on compiler
> performance of replacing Jburg with a FalconJX “back-end” that outputs
> SWFs.  It isn’t on my list of priorities since we have a compiler that
> works, but it just occurred to me that maybe Michael Schmalle and some
> others might find that interesting.
>
> Just thinking out loud, there would be two or three proof points, one when
> you first get enough code to produce a SWF, another when you can produce
> the same SWF that the Jburg reducer/generator does, so you know you are
> taking into consideration some of the optimizations that the reducer can
> currently do (I believe it does constant folding) and much later, if ever,
> when other optimizations are warranted (tail-call, in-lining, etc).
>
> I wouldn’t be surprised if Jburg loses at the first proof point because
> I’ve stepped through the code and watched it make several function calls
> to output a single ABC sequence, but IIRC, the promise of a BURM is
> supposed to be in the optimizations (the rewrites).  On the JS side, we
> send the JS to the Google Closure Compiler which is also doing rewrites.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 4/27/15, 10:35 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On 4/27/15, 10:20 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <ch...@c-ware.de>
> wrote:
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>
> >>has anything significantly changed with FlexJS and Falcon from a
> >>packaging point of view?
> >
> >They are still two separate packages.  The list of SWCs in FlexJS has
> >changed significantly as well as where the source is located.
> >
> >>
> >>I had thought that I head Alex say that JBurg was taken out of Falcon to
> >>make it more understandable ... is that true or was that a memory of a
> >>dream? I could see the jburg jar is still downloaded ...
> >
> >Jburg was and still used by the SWF compiler.  Jburg was in the original
> >cross-compiler called FalconJS, but some folks thought it was too hard to
> >learn and created FalconJX that we use today.  But it has been that way
> >since before the 0.0.1 releases.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>I guess with FlexJS a lot has changed, but did that have an effect on the
> >>generated artifacts or are the changes related to the artifacts content
> >>and how the compiler deals with it?
> >
> >Not sure what you mean.
> >
> >-Alex
> >
>
>

Re: What has changed with FlexJS and Falcon in the last months?

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

I also remembered this morning that I speculated on the impact on compiler
performance of replacing Jburg with a FalconJX “back-end” that outputs
SWFs.  It isn’t on my list of priorities since we have a compiler that
works, but it just occurred to me that maybe Michael Schmalle and some
others might find that interesting.

Just thinking out loud, there would be two or three proof points, one when
you first get enough code to produce a SWF, another when you can produce
the same SWF that the Jburg reducer/generator does, so you know you are
taking into consideration some of the optimizations that the reducer can
currently do (I believe it does constant folding) and much later, if ever,
when other optimizations are warranted (tail-call, in-lining, etc).

I wouldn’t be surprised if Jburg loses at the first proof point because
I’ve stepped through the code and watched it make several function calls
to output a single ABC sequence, but IIRC, the promise of a BURM is
supposed to be in the optimizations (the rewrites).  On the JS side, we
send the JS to the Google Closure Compiler which is also doing rewrites.

-Alex

On 4/27/15, 10:35 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:

>
>
>On 4/27/15, 10:20 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>
>>has anything significantly changed with FlexJS and Falcon from a
>>packaging point of view?
>
>They are still two separate packages.  The list of SWCs in FlexJS has
>changed significantly as well as where the source is located.
>
>>
>>I had thought that I head Alex say that JBurg was taken out of Falcon to
>>make it more understandable ... is that true or was that a memory of a
>>dream? I could see the jburg jar is still downloaded ...
>
>Jburg was and still used by the SWF compiler.  Jburg was in the original
>cross-compiler called FalconJS, but some folks thought it was too hard to
>learn and created FalconJX that we use today.  But it has been that way
>since before the 0.0.1 releases.
>
>>
>>
>>I guess with FlexJS a lot has changed, but did that have an effect on the
>>generated artifacts or are the changes related to the artifacts content
>>and how the compiler deals with it?
>
>Not sure what you mean.
>
>-Alex
>

AW: What has changed with FlexJS and Falcon in the last months?

[Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>]

I would like to adjust my Maven-Packaging targets to produce valid artifacts again in order to use them in Flexmojos. So instead of refactoring the entire SDKs I just wanted to know what has changed ...

Ok ... I think I'll ask the JBurg guy, if he could deploy JBurg to maven central ... that would make things a lot easier. Cause currently publishing Maven artifacts from Falcon and FlexJS would require us to publish falcon too ... I could ask him.

Chris

________________________________________
Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. April 2015 07:35
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: What has changed with FlexJS and Falcon in the last months?

On 4/27/15, 10:20 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>
>has anything significantly changed with FlexJS and Falcon from a
>packaging point of view?

They are still two separate packages.  The list of SWCs in FlexJS has
changed significantly as well as where the source is located.

>
>I had thought that I head Alex say that JBurg was taken out of Falcon to
>make it more understandable ... is that true or was that a memory of a
>dream? I could see the jburg jar is still downloaded ...

Jburg was and still used by the SWF compiler.  Jburg was in the original
cross-compiler called FalconJS, but some folks thought it was too hard to
learn and created FalconJX that we use today.  But it has been that way
since before the 0.0.1 releases.

>
>
>I guess with FlexJS a lot has changed, but did that have an effect on the
>generated artifacts or are the changes related to the artifacts content
>and how the compiler deals with it?

Not sure what you mean.

-Alex

Re: What has changed with FlexJS and Falcon in the last months?

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 4/27/15, 10:20 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>
>has anything significantly changed with FlexJS and Falcon from a
>packaging point of view?

They are still two separate packages.  The list of SWCs in FlexJS has
changed significantly as well as where the source is located.

>
>I had thought that I head Alex say that JBurg was taken out of Falcon to
>make it more understandable ... is that true or was that a memory of a
>dream? I could see the jburg jar is still downloaded ...

Jburg was and still used by the SWF compiler.  Jburg was in the original
cross-compiler called FalconJS, but some folks thought it was too hard to
learn and created FalconJX that we use today.  But it has been that way
since before the 0.0.1 releases.

>
>
>I guess with FlexJS a lot has changed, but did that have an effect on the
>generated artifacts or are the changes related to the artifacts content
>and how the compiler deals with it?

Not sure what you mean.

-Alex