Replies: 2 comments 5 replies
-
Currently we're using the compiler version to determine what support is available. There are actually two things at play here:
So for example, adding things like If you run "mxmlc -version" you'll see the version of the compiler changing as we add those features; and we bumped up the major version when supporting the I guess we could start naming the ActionScript capabilities in a similar way with 3.0 being what we inherited from Adobe, and then incrementing a minor version when we added a new feature (I would still say that Agree re. Animate and the built-in compiler that it uses. Flex of course is similar and hasn't been updated for a while, but there is a Flex compiler within Apache Royale which is being updated, and we'd been looking to adapt that version as the one that is used in AIR too (but get a bit stuck internally when it comes to trying to update open source things..). thanks |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I like the idea and ActionScript 3.1 (/ 3.x) sounds good 👍 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
ActionScript 3.0 has a long term history. Developers know ActionScript as 3.0 all know it's born in 2009. But know we have some updates in language. Like new operators (
@""
,?.
,??
) and new basic data type (float
).Should we specify ActionScript 3.x for different feature? Like Python 3.x do. Now newest Python version is 3.13 (as i know), and Python 3.x use the same environment, it's just like what happens on ActionScript. Why don't we call ActionScript like ActionScript 3.1 and ActionScript 3.2? I think it's directly show people that ActionScript is still alive!
And the same time, the issue that Adobe Animate use a built-in compiler causes it can't compile new operators and literal (like
2.17f
). Through Adobe Animate calls the doc type ActionScript 3.0, i think it's also a way to show people diiference.Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions