In early July, we intend to release a new version of the Flapjax library. This release will be backward-compatible with the current release. We will fix bugs, improve performance, and provide better documentation.
The principal change is that we wish to no longer support the Flapjax compiler. More on that below.
As we discussed recently, we've been using Flapjax extensively:
These projects use Flapjax as a library, eschewing the compiler. While the compiler affords some syntactic convenience, we find that we rarely use it. For instance, Continue 2.0 has 200 calls to lift in 3,000 lines of code. Moreover, feedback we've gotten from other users indicates that they, too, prefer to use Flapjax as a library, because it provides greater flexibility and better integration with other libraries and tools for JavaScript.
If anyone has significant objections to our dropping the compiler, please do let us know! (If there are none, we can put out the new release sooner.)
> In early July, we intend to release a new version of the Flapjax > library. This release will be backward-compatible with the current > release. We will fix bugs, improve performance, and provide better > documentation.
> The principal change is that we wish to no longer support the Flapjax > compiler. More on that below.
> As we discussed recently, we've been using Flapjax extensively:
> These projects use Flapjax as a library, eschewing the compiler. > While the compiler affords some syntactic convenience, we find that we > rarely use it. For instance, Continue 2.0 has 200 calls to lift in > 3,000 lines of code. Moreover, feedback we've gotten from other users > indicates that they, too, prefer to use Flapjax as a library, because > it provides greater flexibility and better integration with other > libraries and tools for JavaScript.
> If anyone has significant objections to our dropping the compiler, > please do let us know! (If there are none, we can put out the new > release sooner.)
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:22 AM, Jaime Vargas <j...@mac.com> wrote:
> Not significant objections, but I prefer the flapjax language syntax > and its succinctness.
Breaks my heart, too. But the insularity of the current compiler isn't a good thing. Ultimately we have to break down and do some serious research to figure out how to smooth this integration. But a research-less, naive compiler is not, I think, a good thing in the balance.
