Today, the Ecma International Technical Committee 39 (TC39) announced it will focus work on the next ECMAScript standard, which will be known as “Harmony” and on ES3.1 (ECMA-262 Edition 3.1), with full collaboration of all parties involved in the subgroups of the TC39 (ECMAScript) committee. Work on ES3.1 will unite the committee in its work to create the next Ecma JavaScript standard, targeting two interoperable implementations by early 2009.
Adobe thinks this harmonization effort is a good thing. However, some blogs and comments have come out with the perspective that Adobe has “lost” the standards battle on ActionScript as a standard.
So let’s try to set the story a bit straighter.
Adobe (and Macromedia before) has been part of the revitalized ECMAScript efforts for a long time. The evolution of ECMAScript after the publication of the now current ECMA-262 in December 1999 [http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm] had stalled and as the web evolved, it was clear that the standard needed to be re-examined. Macromedia was a key part of that restart.
Standards (as I’ve mentioned before) do not drive innovation; rather they are desirable for setting a baseline of commonality. Since ActionScript is based on ECMA-262, it made sense for Adobe to offer it as a point for consideration as a basis for starting discussion on the next ECMAScript.
Unfortunately, as is the case with many standards, the situation became a tug of war. Standards aren’t just about the good of the community; they are also now recognized as competitive advantages. A new standard for ECMAScript thus became mired in a morass of bickering, infighting, and sometimes, out and out name calling; the politics of competition. It became clear that members could not arrive at the consensus needed to allow a decade of advancements to be incorporated into the next generation of ECMAScript.
Adobe is for standards. Standards make it possible to interoperate, intercommunicate and build rich experiences. I’ve stated that openness is like a conversation, in that we need a standard basis for understanding. We’re aligned with the needs of the web in stabilizing ECMAScript. This harmony will allow at least some improvements, updating of the existing standard, and for us to all be able to “talk” on the web with every one.
However, the web has evolved, and innovation is needed to continue to deliver rich applications and access to information. Adobe will continue to provide innovative technology through continuing to advance ActionScript (which, as mentioned, itself is based on ECMAScript).
We’ve already taken the steps to make sure that this innovative technology is available to everyone through release to open source of the Flex SDK, BlazeDS and the Tamarin VM (the virtual machine for ActionScript ). Open source is yet another aspect of being open. Open source powers innovation, just as standards tend to stabilize commonality. Using the conversation metaphor, open source allows us to talk in ways we might not have had in the past, whether it is in new words or new jargon. We’ll continue to work with all the groups, such as Open Ajax Alliance, Eclipse, Linux Foundation, as well as the standards groups defining the web.
In short, we agree with the necessity of the Ecma TC39 ES harmony effort. We’ll continue to be involved, in both ES Harmony and in future generations of ECMAScript. We will track Ecma efforts within ActionScript but won’t stop innovating ActionScript, which millions of developers rely on and is key to so many incredible web experiences today. It’s in our charter to make it possible to push the limits of what can be done on the web. We’ll continue to work with and for the community of folks who want to build the best the web can offer.
I invite you to join Adobe and myself in a conversation about where the web is going to evolve, built on a stable, mainstream base of standards.
So what does this mean for the future of ActionScript? Will the next version of ActionScript (3.1?) drop namespaces and packages in order to stay Ecma compliant?
ANSWER: ActionScript remains a innovative superset of ECMAScript, and we will not remove functionality. If you're an ActionScript developer, your skills continue to be safe and grow in demand. We will continue to evolve the language to meet customer and developer needs. We do plan to continue to work on ensuring ActionScript is aligned with what standards emerge.
I'm assuming that's a response to Danny's question? And by reading that, it looks like packages and namespaces will stay. Is that correct?
Answer: Yes, that is the Answer. and I'll clarify that.
Packages and namespaces do stay.
I'm really glad Adobe is continuing efforts to refine the Actionscript language. It would seem that because of recent events, as you point out, Actionscript will somehow shift back into the propriety realm, in effect, losing ground. How did this become misinterpreted by the Actionscript community?
Does this mean that Adobe will be free to add things like private constructors, that were previously left out due to not being part of the standard?
ANSWER: We plan to continue to innovate and add the features that get requested and make it possible to build really cool stuff. So let us know what you'd like to see in future releases of ActionScript.
Will the development of ActionScript, maybe toward AS4, will try to implement some of the ES4 features that has been discussed for the last 2 years by the TC39 ?
I'm taking this logic, if right now package and namespace are considered optional addition,
then why not add more of those optional addition to the standard, like operator overloading.
or like the intrinsic and magic namespace, etc. ?
ans still remain compatible with the standard (well just adding a hell lot of addition because
the flash platform need them right now and can not wait another few years before implementing them)
ANSWER: We're committed to making ActionScript the right language for the future web, while keeping the connections to past (e.g. backward compatibility). We'll be looking over all those things that we (and maybe you) have wanted in ActionScript, including items that make sense from the TC39 efforts.
> I invite you to join Adobe and myself in a conversation about where the web is going to evolve,
> built on a stable, mainstream base of standards.
I think a lot of developers would be happy to talk with Adobe on how the ActionScript language can evolve, or at least could vote on the features they really want.
ANSWER: Similar to the open bugbases of Flash Player and AVM, we're going to look into ways to make it easy for you to tell us what you think is important. May be decided by a benevolent dictatorship rather than a vote, but we believe in listening to our developers.
Some Adobe fonts (for example Adobe Garamond and Adobe Arno) have extensive alternate glyph capabilities.
Could you possibly advocate that the Harmony system includes a mechanism such that the alternate glyphs of fonts can be used please?
William Overington
15 August 2008
ANSWER: I'll have to pass this off to the ActionScript guys, and to the folks who represent Adobe on TC39. But I think it worth mentioning for sure.
Personally it sounds to me that Adobe either needs to adopt a new standard that lends itself more (then ecma 3.1) to OOP in highly interactive RIAs, propose an ActionScript standard to the ECMA committee or keep it proprietary like so many other successful languages.
If Microsoft / ECMA want to stifle JavaScript developers with an language that's been boot strapped into application development I don't see why that needs to be a hindrance to us.
-erik
ANSWER: Well, there are certainly successful languages that don't have standards. And with the implementation of ActionScript (FLex) being open source, I like to think that we fall there as well.
We will consider the next steps for ActionScript, both in following the baseline of standards as well as innovating for the future.
Adobe has already open-sourced there code base to Mozilla, they need to continue to push this path and try to get both standards added to the browser. 3.1 will be javascript2 and the current ecmaScript4 can become javascript3. To have all this work thrown out isn't the answer. They could call it something else or form a different branch of a standard to justify this but letting Microsoft dumb down the future isn't the smart things to do. They may have enough pull to force the 3.1 angle but it doesn't mean they should be able to stop the advancement any of this.
Unfortunately, standards aren't also the smartest things. Dumbing down is often a fact of standardization. We haven't let that stop us from innovation in the past; we won't in the future.
Being based on the standard gives everyone a good starting point. But standards don't push innovation, they under lie them.
We are still contributing code and working with Mozilla on Tamarin and SpiderMonkey. We will
continue to invest engineering resources in the ActionScript Virtual Machine and will be working openly with the Mozilla community to improve the Tamarin code.
What is the feasibility of somebody ( not necessarily Adobe ) taking the Tamarin code base and developing an in-browser ActionScript interpreter? I think if developers could write ActionScript in-page ( like JavaScript is now ) and have it interpreted by an open source plugin, it would appeal to both developers and users even if it is not technically 'standard'.
If it's successful might even put enough pressure on Microsoft to get on board.
Jamie
ANSWER: Wow. Way past me. I'll have to dig into that and see what people think. Definitely intriguing.
If the standards don't evolve to meet the demands of innovation, then to hell with the standard, to put it bluntly. I know you guys are putting on a good face on this whole issue, but the fact of the matter is that AS has to move on without the ECMA, or be crippled.
Please, please use this opportunity to give us back our private constructors, and add method overloading and multiple inheritance.
ANSWER: I'll pass this request on to the team. We hear you!
Maybe what you guys can do is form your own ECMA standard, like what Microsoft did with C# and ECMA-334. That way ActionScript can still be said to adhere to an ECMA standard, just not one that can be derailed by your competitors.
ANSWER: we're considering all sorts of other approaches. Right now though, the strongest message heard is that ya'll want ActionScript to innovate and create new opportunities for the web.
Will some next version of ActionScript support NULLABLE datatypes or basic data types wrapper classes? For serious development of real database oriented applications it is essential and I don't understand why so many people can work without it...
Release the actionscript compiler in addition to the tamarin vm as open source. Then watch it find it's way into open source browsers (webkit and gecko) and other software. Guide actionscript opensource development and innovation in a speedy fashion.
I think web standards can be important:
http://k2xl.com/wordpress/2008/08/15/web-standards/
Private constructors and abstract classes aren't worth it. The more important thing is to have a standard that the major RIA languages of the web could follow. Will hurt the web in the future in my opinion.
ANSWER: Standards are important. That's why we belong to standards bodies, allow our engineers to work on standards, and submit important standards to SDOs (Standards Development Organization). However, unless you think the future of the web is already finished, depending solely on a standard may not allow you or such the chance to innovate fully. We'll base our work on standards, as we always have, but we will innovate to create a better web for all of us.
What is the feasibility of somebody ( not necessarily Adobe ) taking the Tamarin code base and developing an in-browser ActionScript interpreter? I think if developers could write ActionScript in-page ( like JavaScript is now ) and have it interpreted by an open source plugin, it would appeal to both developers and users even if it is not technically 'standard'.
I'm not a web developer so take this with a grain of salt, but I think there is something of huge strategic importance there. If it's right in the browser, and could be used in-page, you could technically start deploying full real applications in the browser, like photoshop, acrobat, etc. and make the OS completely irrelevant. While microsoft may have a near OS platform monopoly, Adobe has the same with Acrobat and Photoshop, and can use those effectively. If a say low cost version of the CS3 applications came out and could be delivered by browser that would be huge incentive for people to us it. Of course, they would first get a message that they have to download and install firefox b/c it doesn't work on IE. Additionally other people could deploy full applications as well. MS would be forced to support the standard which would erode their own OS base. While Dvorak is calling for a port to linux, I think full AS4.0 support in the browser, not as a plugin, and a port of those applications to the browser is a more strategic move. MS would hate it and it would help erode the MS monopoly in a big way.
The decision of the TC39 may very well be for the best. There have always been functional standards and official standards. Official standards take a lot of politics, influence and deep pockets, functional standards take good engineering. Flash and ActionScript are already functional standards! Adobe is in a unique position regarding ActionScript, with very unique requirements that vary a lot from the requirements that Microsoft, Mozilla and others have in regards to ECMAScript. I, for one, believe that if you keep on the good work, and keep on paying attention first to these requirements the future of ActionScript is secure. After having to hack countless singeltons, I welcome the new flexibility that Adobe may gain with this decision, and doesn't loose track of why Flash became an actual standard in the first place.
I'd totally support Adobe proposing ActionScript as its own standard. The use cases for Flash and other Adobe solutions are very different to the hobbled environment for Web programming in a browser. ActionScript should arguably not be similarly constrained.
Our implementation of ES4 called Ejscript (http://www.ejscript.org) is very similar to ActionScript and thus there are 2 very similar implementations that are real shipping products. Could Adobe carry the ES4 torch and propose ActionScript as a standard? Ejscript would be a necessary 2nd implementation.
ANSWER; Well, we don't believe in causing schisms in standards. (That's the job of other companies ;-> ). That said, we are considering what's next. But for now, Actionscript will focus on creating the best choice for creating even cooler stuff for the web.
is there much of a clash between ECMA-334 and ES4? is there many technical hurdles to incorporate both ECMA-334 and ECMA-262 into ES4?
I don't understand :
is-it like if Adobe has first offered to everybody his actionscript technology with open-source on his virtual machine for ActionScript and was hoping the adoption of this technology as an ECMA international standard ?
But if ActionScript is not not a ECMA standard but open sourced, then Microsoft and/or Apple could benefit for themselves more
from this now open sourced technology by integrating it and renaming it and modifying it in their own proprietary new technologies ?
as SilverLight or QuickTime or ... or any other Flash killer = Flash copying technology ?
Don't-you think ?
is that possible or not with an open sourced technology and what could the law to avoid this ?
The only good answer is not in words but in more advanced and cool and compatible products than others always more easy and powerful and usable on any computer and modern device.
2/ So here my hot but real questions below about "Flash on the iPhone" the symbol of the new and future modern devices ?
What about the flash player plug-in for the iPhone :
- with safari to access all the websites with flash contents (flash 9 would be the best choice) ?
- and/or with a standalone AIR app for iPhone that could play any AIR standard app ?
- and/or with adding to Flash authoring tool (CS3) the capability to create a standalone projection
of any flash application not only for Mac and PC (exe) and Linux but also for the iPhone.
Why the SDK for the iPhone is not enough for Adobe to create a full standalone Flash 9 player ?
Why these conflicts ?
Why Adobe is not supporting iPhone really and freely ?
in fact don't you think this question is more important than many think
because all the Flash developers are now asking seriously questions
about the future of Flash development platform if Adobe Flash is not or can not made be compatible by Adobe
with modern mobile devices as iPhone ?
Please, I am almost sure that it's impossible that Adobe has not already done a standalone player for the iPhone 3G and can add this iPhone Player to Adobe Flash and Flex authoring tools and to the Adobe AIR platform
isn't it ?
Thanks for your authorized answers.
But I think that all the developers are anxious and waiting and wanting the good reaction from Adobe
not words but compatible products and authoring tools.
Thanks again.
Hugues FREI
Ingénieur et Editeur
conseil, conception, réalisation et édition internet & multimédia
18 rue Broquedis - 64200 BIARRITZ
tél. 05 59 03 91 35 - mob. 06 60 83 07 95
Références :
Editions L'Enfant-Lumière - www.enfantlumiere.com
Le Chalet Interactive Media - www.le-chalet.com