One of the jobs I'm doing at the moment involves Flex—and consequently Flash—for the front-end and Java at the back-end, most of which involves writing ActionScript.
If you haven't used ActionScript before, you'd be forgiven for thinking you were writing JavaScript. Well, in fact you are writing JavaScript with a few changes, not necessarily for the better IMHO—If you read the documentation you'll discover that ActionScript is indeed based on ECMA Script, the same specification that was retro-fitted to JavaScript.
From what I can tell, ActionScript 1.x was pretty much exactly JavaScript. Version 2 on the other-hand adds some syntactic sugar to the language; no doubt an attempt to make a prototype-based language appear more like a class-based language in the hope of attracting all the Java developers. I'll get into these additions in a bit but in any event, I find it highly amusing when Macromedia proclaim that version 1 was somehow a functional language and that version 2 is now a fully-blown O-O language.
(As an aside, I interviewed some potential developers the other day who said they loved ActionScript but thought JavaScript was a language for doing hack-work. I can only assume that opinion comes from having only used JavaScript for handling onXXX events in a browser rather than any objective comparison of the langauges themselves.)
So, on to some of the more notable changes to the language starting with type-safety. JavaScript is weakly typed. This is a topic of biblical proportions so I'll leave alone the merits or otherwise of weak-typing suffice to say that I like it. In their infinite wisdom, Macromedia decided that what was needed was a bit of strong (or strict) typing. This is enforced by the compiler with a combination of type declaration after variable and parameter names:
var foo : Number;
Unfortunately this type-safety is limited to compile-time checking—nothing happens at runtime, much like Java's generics. Not so much of a problem I guess—I didn't want the strong typing in the first place—but amusing nonetheless.
So the next question is, how do you know what functions are available for a given type? In JavaScript these are essentially defined at runtime by adding behavior to a prototype. Well why not add some more syntax to the language?
class MyClass {
private var num : Number;
public MyClass(num : Number) {
this.num = num;
}
public getNum() : Number {
return this.num;
}
}
Ok, so that's probably a little easier for most people to understand than:
MyClass = function(num) {
this.num = num;
};
MyClass.prototype.getNum = function() {
return this.num;
};
But I actually find the "new" way actually involves a lot more typing than the good-old-fashioned way—which once you're used to is easy to read anyway—and hides the fact that it is still a prototype-based language and NOT a class-based one. (I also quite like the way prototype declares "classes" but I haven't found the time to start doing it that way just yet.)
You can also declare property accessors just like in VB/C#/etc:
class MyClass {
private var num : Number;
...
public get num : Number {
return this.num;
}
public set num(num : Number) : Void {
this.num = num;
}
}
Again, great if you like that kind of thing; I'm still not convinced I do.
The other thing that gets people is the scoping rules. JavaScript has some pretty funky scoping rules which once you're used to and understand work just fine. Again, because ActionScript looks like Java, developers don't realise the importance of understanding the scoping rules.
ActionScript also introduces another new keyword: dynamic. This can be used when defining a class and indicates to the compiler that it should NOT do strong type checking when invoking methods and accessing properties of the class—either from within or from outside the class. Again, I find this a highly amusing construct as I can always defeat the type checking the old-fashioned way anyhow: myObj["doSomething"](15);. Yes, I agree, that's a bit of malicious code but what I'd prefer is an option to turn on/off strict typing at a project level and not on a per-class basis.
Interestingly, someone recently pointed me at an open source compiler for ActionScript. I wonder if I could just download the code, remove the strict type checking and be done with it ;-). Oh and there's also a unit testing toolkit as well.
All in all, I quite like using ActionScript. I've only played around a bit with Flash/Flex bindings but they seem quite nice too. I actually think it would be pretty easy to build a Cocoa—JavaBeans the way they should have worked—like framework (eek there's the word!) which I thoroughly enjoy using at the moment.
But when it comes down to it, It has been my experience—and no doubt the experience of others in the JavaScript/Ruby/Smalltalk/Objective-C world—that I can achieve a lot more in fewer lines of readable code without all the syntactic sugar and strong typing. (The caveat being that I'm also a big fan of automated testing.) Moreover, understanding that JavaScript uses prototypes opens up a whole new world of possibilities that further increase my productivity—a fact that became apparent to the attendees of a mini presentation I gave on this subject just recently.
Listen to this article
Subscribe to this blog's feed
: A good understanding of algorithms, and the knowledge of when to apply them, is crucial to producing software that not only works correctly, but also performs efficiently.
