On 2/7/12 6:45 AM, "Michael A. Labriola" wrote: > > I understand your position, however, I really think that some of the byte code > approaches could get us very maintainable code and speed of execution. That's > why I am so interested in this approach. Honestly, with a really good > optimizing compiler it is difficult to take final byte code and trace it back > to original source as well. It will come down to what you get for that optimization that breaks the mapping from byte code to source. Even if it is 10% for 1% of the cases, then I would say it isn't worth it, or at least, a non-default option, and the framework needs to work well for the other 99% of the cases, and I am saying I would drop 100% backward compatibility rather than break that mapping. The MSVC compiler can do inlining and tail call optimizations that greatly speed up the kind of things I think the 99% is going to need without making it totally impossible to map backward from bytecode to source. So yeah, I'm all for some byte-code optimizations and some fudging of the language rules (so you really can inline a constant), but I am still hoping a class definition will be same everywhere so newbies have fewer things to learn to be successful with Flex. -- Alex Harui Flex SDK Team Adobe Systems, Inc. http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui