4 ms·

How has this escaped popular notice for so long? EDIT: How has Haxe as a language escaped popular notice for so long?

jdmichal 11y ago
At the risk of sounding like a JavaScript interviewer, define "this". The article was posted today, so I doubt that's what you're referring to. EDIT: My guess would be that it was originally too focused in its use case as an ActionScript replacement for Flash. In current times, I would say that it has made the same mistake that everything other than TypeScript has: It tries to "fix" JavaScript / ECMAScript. That means learning yet another slightly-different thing, and also porting if it's not a new project. TypeScript has picked up a lot of momentum by taking the superset approach, allowing progressive enhancement of existing codebases. Just start throwing your JavaScript into the TypeScript compiler and you're done.
- larsiusprime 11y ago
  Are you sure it isn't also the fact that it's historically had a tiny community of open source hackers and TypeScript has all the momentum of MS behind it?
  - jdmichal 11y ago
    I'm sure that also plays into it. Though DefinitelyTyped was started by someone who AFAIK is unaffiliated with MS, and I would say that is pretty critical to its success. I should have specified that the above is the reason I would choose TypeScript over Haxe now. There's a lot of times when I will prototype a project in vanilla JavaScript, then set up the TypeScript build infrastructure and start enhancing.
- yoklov 11y ago
  I don't think Haxe really is trying to fix JS, any more than it tries to fix C#, C++ or Java. It's similar enough to JS due to being a ES4 (ActionScript) derivative, but that's mostly a coincidence due to it's legacy.
agd 11y ago
I started out using Haxe and eventually switched to Typescript because: - it didn't easily integrate with existing JS code/libraries - small community - low resources (compiler bugs existed and weren't quickly fixed) The community was a dealbreaker really. Lots of JS libraries already have TS type definitions so it's easy to get started, and TS keeps up-to-date with new JS features. I prefered the Haxe typesystem, but it didn't really make business sense to keep using it.
- enriquecastl 11y ago
  The first point applies to TypeScript too. It's hard to integrate a library that doesn't have a type definition or don't play well with its module system. This week I started to work on a Node hobby project and decided to use TypeScript. I rolled back my decision after noticing that it was not possible to include installed node npm modules using the ES6 syntax. They'll probably fix this issue sooner rather than later but in the meanwhile it's a critical issue.
  - Glide 11y ago
    Wait.. Are you talking about what's described here: https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/issues/2242 https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/issues/2242 I just did a small typescript prototype and used the import syntax there. It might have been your typescript version as 1.5 recently came out (and I was using the 1.5 beta 2). The hardest part is what you described at the start. If it doesn't have a type definition it's hard. DefinitelyTyped helps a lot (https://github.com/DefinitelyTyped/tsd https://github.com/DefinitelyTyped/tsd) I had to create a type definition for something that wasn't there. It was annoying because I had to make the equivalent of a header file before I could use a library.
  - nothrabannosir 11y ago
    Am I missing something here? Let's say you want to include Chart.js, and imagine there are no type definitions: declare var Chart: any; atop your file, and you can use it the same way you would in JS: without type info. No need to create any type definitions. Or do you mean something different?
mjfisher 11y ago
I have no idea. We've been using it for a couple of years or so now, and have a wonderfully varied set of products built using Haxe and its libraries. If anyone browsing the comments section is interested in a familiar-ish, statically typed and fairly powerful language that cross compiles to a huge range of back-ends and platforms, take a couple of minutes to visit haxe.org. It's worth the time.
explorigin 11y ago
Pretty simple. Haxe is a small project supported by some niche-market companies. It's just now starting to break out of that. Typescript is from Microsoft and was integrated into Visual Studio straight away. Aside from that, it has a longer learning curve than TS. This article does a great job of outlining some of the differences.
nadams 11y ago
> How has Haxe as a language escaped popular notice for so long? Simple really - other languages, framework, and SDKs have filled the programming needs of people. I've found most source-to-source compilers to either be completely broken, too complicated to use, or not enough features (I've seen a number of Python to C compilers started and never even close to finished). I discovered Haxe many years ago when I had the idea for my own source-to-source compiler (and created my own lexer, parser, compiler, and virtual machine in C++). I personally haven't used Haxe yet but I found it's documentation to be pretty good and it seems to have good reviews. HLA [1] might also be interesting to you. [1] http://www.plantation-productions.com/Webster/ http://www.plantation-productions.com/Webster/
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
aikah 11y ago
A few things in my opinion that slowed down Haxe: - Language barrier (Since Haxe docs are first and foremost handled by europeans like me, I know English natives always find it a bit ghetto when they feel the writer isn't a native, but there is very little we can do about it) - It's not as easy to use as it seems, though OpenFL made it a bit easier. - Backward compatibility breaks between versions, I'm sorry but a language designer should never do that. I know it's tough to get things right on the first iteration,but v2 libs not working in v3 can slow down a language adoption. We've seen this countless times. It only piss off early adopters. - Maybe too focused on Flash at first ( But the C++ and JS targets work quite well, in fact, both Android and IOS targets use C++ ). - written in OCAML... makes it more difficult for people to contribute to the core. I'd say wait a few more years until the stuff is mature. EDIT: if you are writing a game it is a no brainer. Your app will run in the browser with JS, Flash and natively on Ios and Android with a single codebase and very very little tweaking.
yoklov 11y ago
It's fairly well known in game development circles, at least for indies. It also has a bunch of weird features that can be off-putting. Abstracts and macros, for example, are both fairly weird, although seem to be extremely powerful. And... not having a large company like MS backing it doesn't help it out any.
chipsy 11y ago
To put it dramatically, Haxe is a parasitic environment. It can't offer tooling quite as robust or exact as a ground-up language environment. In exchange it allows projects to change direction very rapidly and bolt together the union of technologies native to a platform, and technologies made portable within Haxe. This has made the language a hard sell in its first decade. Lots of people have passed through, made something amazing, and then wandered off. The compiler has always been solid, but the rest of the ecosystem regularly encounters missing pieces. A "full-stack" mentality is nearly a must to ship a project in Haxe. But since it's made it this far, it's only likely to keep improving from here. After all, "prevent lock-in" and "reduce portability costs" are powerful selling points.
treve 11y ago
The reason I dismissed Haxe, was that back in the day the original author basically annoyed the hell out of everyone on the flash mailing lists (in particular OSFlash), being extremely arrogant and constantly pushing his technology in unrelated threads. I wonder if that guy is still at the helm.

At the risk of sounding like a JavaScript interviewer, define "this". The article was posted today, so I doubt that's what you're referring to. EDIT: My guess would be that it was originally too focused in its use case as an ActionScript replacement for Flash. In current times, I would say that it has made the same mistake that everything other than TypeScript has: It tries to "fix" JavaScript / ECMAScript. That means learning yet another slightly-different thing, and also porting if it's not a new project. TypeScript has picked up a lot of momentum by taking the superset approach, allowing progressive enhancement of existing codebases. Just start throwing your JavaScript into the TypeScript compiler and you're done.

larsiusprime 11y ago
Are you sure it isn't also the fact that it's historically had a tiny community of open source hackers and TypeScript has all the momentum of MS behind it?
- jdmichal 11y ago
  I'm sure that also plays into it. Though DefinitelyTyped was started by someone who AFAIK is unaffiliated with MS, and I would say that is pretty critical to its success. I should have specified that the above is the reason I would choose TypeScript over Haxe now. There's a lot of times when I will prototype a project in vanilla JavaScript, then set up the TypeScript build infrastructure and start enhancing.
yoklov 11y ago
I don't think Haxe really is trying to fix JS, any more than it tries to fix C#, C++ or Java. It's similar enough to JS due to being a ES4 (ActionScript) derivative, but that's mostly a coincidence due to it's legacy.

agd 11y ago

I started out using Haxe and eventually switched to Typescript because: - it didn't easily integrate with existing JS code/libraries - small community - low resources (compiler bugs existed and weren't quickly fixed) The community was a dealbreaker really. Lots of JS libraries already have TS type definitions so it's easy to get started, and TS keeps up-to-date with new JS features. I prefered the Haxe typesystem, but it didn't really make business sense to keep using it.

enriquecastl 11y ago
The first point applies to TypeScript too. It's hard to integrate a library that doesn't have a type definition or don't play well with its module system. This week I started to work on a Node hobby project and decided to use TypeScript. I rolled back my decision after noticing that it was not possible to include installed node npm modules using the ES6 syntax. They'll probably fix this issue sooner rather than later but in the meanwhile it's a critical issue.
- Glide 11y ago
  Wait.. Are you talking about what's described here: https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/issues/2242 https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/issues/2242 I just did a small typescript prototype and used the import syntax there. It might have been your typescript version as 1.5 recently came out (and I was using the 1.5 beta 2). The hardest part is what you described at the start. If it doesn't have a type definition it's hard. DefinitelyTyped helps a lot (https://github.com/DefinitelyTyped/tsd https://github.com/DefinitelyTyped/tsd) I had to create a type definition for something that wasn't there. It was annoying because I had to make the equivalent of a header file before I could use a library.
- nothrabannosir 11y ago
  Am I missing something here? Let's say you want to include Chart.js, and imagine there are no type definitions: declare var Chart: any; atop your file, and you can use it the same way you would in JS: without type info. No need to create any type definitions. Or do you mean something different?

mjfisher 11y ago

I have no idea. We've been using it for a couple of years or so now, and have a wonderfully varied set of products built using Haxe and its libraries. If anyone browsing the comments section is interested in a familiar-ish, statically typed and fairly powerful language that cross compiles to a huge range of back-ends and platforms, take a couple of minutes to visit haxe.org. It's worth the time.

explorigin 11y ago

Pretty simple. Haxe is a small project supported by some niche-market companies. It's just now starting to break out of that. Typescript is from Microsoft and was integrated into Visual Studio straight away. Aside from that, it has a longer learning curve than TS. This article does a great job of outlining some of the differences.

nadams 11y ago

> How has Haxe as a language escaped popular notice for so long? Simple really - other languages, framework, and SDKs have filled the programming needs of people. I've found most source-to-source compilers to either be completely broken, too complicated to use, or not enough features (I've seen a number of Python to C compilers started and never even close to finished). I discovered Haxe many years ago when I had the idea for my own source-to-source compiler (and created my own lexer, parser, compiler, and virtual machine in C++). I personally haven't used Haxe yet but I found it's documentation to be pretty good and it seems to have good reviews. HLA [1] might also be interesting to you. [1] http://www.plantation-productions.com/Webster/ http://www.plantation-productions.com/Webster/

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

aikah 11y ago

A few things in my opinion that slowed down Haxe: - Language barrier (Since Haxe docs are first and foremost handled by europeans like me, I know English natives always find it a bit ghetto when they feel the writer isn't a native, but there is very little we can do about it) - It's not as easy to use as it seems, though OpenFL made it a bit easier. - Backward compatibility breaks between versions, I'm sorry but a language designer should never do that. I know it's tough to get things right on the first iteration,but v2 libs not working in v3 can slow down a language adoption. We've seen this countless times. It only piss off early adopters. - Maybe too focused on Flash at first ( But the C++ and JS targets work quite well, in fact, both Android and IOS targets use C++ ). - written in OCAML... makes it more difficult for people to contribute to the core. I'd say wait a few more years until the stuff is mature. EDIT: if you are writing a game it is a no brainer. Your app will run in the browser with JS, Flash and natively on Ios and Android with a single codebase and very very little tweaking.

yoklov 11y ago

It's fairly well known in game development circles, at least for indies. It also has a bunch of weird features that can be off-putting. Abstracts and macros, for example, are both fairly weird, although seem to be extremely powerful. And... not having a large company like MS backing it doesn't help it out any.

chipsy 11y ago

To put it dramatically, Haxe is a parasitic environment. It can't offer tooling quite as robust or exact as a ground-up language environment. In exchange it allows projects to change direction very rapidly and bolt together the union of technologies native to a platform, and technologies made portable within Haxe. This has made the language a hard sell in its first decade. Lots of people have passed through, made something amazing, and then wandered off. The compiler has always been solid, but the rest of the ecosystem regularly encounters missing pieces. A "full-stack" mentality is nearly a must to ship a project in Haxe. But since it's made it this far, it's only likely to keep improving from here. After all, "prevent lock-in" and "reduce portability costs" are powerful selling points.

treve 11y ago

The reason I dismissed Haxe, was that back in the day the original author basically annoyed the hell out of everyone on the flash mailing lists (in particular OSFlash), being extremely arrogant and constantly pushing his technology in unrelated threads. I wonder if that guy is still at the helm.