Comments on Jangaroo: Simulating ActionScript in JavaScript: Private Mem...

Hi StarbuckZero, good question, but since it is ra...

2012-01-27T09:33:58.480+01:00

Hi StarbuckZero,
good question, but since it is rather unrelated to the blog post, I re-posted and answered it on the jangaroo-users group:
http://groups.google.com/group/jangaroo-users/browse_thread/thread/5f90ef2606dda2c4

Greetings,
-Frank-

Does Jangaroo support Flash sockets or websockets ...

2012-01-27T03:59:49.356+01:00

Does Jangaroo support Flash sockets or websockets in some form?

Philippe, almost forgot to answer here: yes, we tr...

2012-01-05T11:10:55.778+01:00

Philippe,
almost forgot to answer here: yes, we tried Google Closure, and made some modifications to the Jangaroo compiler so Closure can be used without any additional command line parameters. So far, we only got the "simple" mode to produce working code, not the "advanced" mode. In case of Jangaroo-generated code without comments or white-space, even "advanced" mode only reduces JS code size by 20-30%, while gzip compression results in about 85% reduction. Also, the difference between gzipping directly and gzipping after optimizing via Closure is negligible, so doing both is not really worth the effort.
Thus, I do not really see value in using Closure. Maybe we could use it to spare the Jangaroo compiler taking care of removing comments and white-space and get a bit extra code size reduction "for free".

Interesting approach. As a side note, did you che...

2011-12-06T13:42:24.688+01:00

Interesting approach.

As a side note, did you check Jangaroo generated JS against Google Closure? It is a pretty aggressive JS optimizer, especially the advanced mode which is very hard to support.