<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Object-Oriented programming in ActionScript 3 vs Java</title>
	<atom:link href="http://flexblog.faratasystems.com/2007/01/28/object-oriented-programming-in-actionscript-3-vs-java/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://flexblog.faratasystems.com/2007/01/28/object-oriented-programming-in-actionscript-3-vs-java</link>
	<description>A blog about our experience with Adobe Flex</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:15:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: daniel</title>
		<link>http://flexblog.faratasystems.com/2007/01/28/object-oriented-programming-in-actionscript-3-vs-java/comment-page-1#comment-30160</link>
		<dc:creator>daniel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:45:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://flexblog.faratasystems.com/?p=153#comment-30160</guid>
		<description>AS3 has type hinting (declaration with :Type). Is it true that this is the reason for the faster application built with it and will the apps become slower if I do not use it?

Is there a way to make abstract class in AS3 or declare an attribute in interface?

Daniel - http://runforfun.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>AS3 has type hinting (declaration with :Type). Is it true that this is the reason for the faster application built with it and will the apps become slower if I do not use it?</p>
<p>Is there a way to make abstract class in AS3 or declare an attribute in interface?</p>
<p>Daniel &#8211; <a href="http://runforfun.com" rel="nofollow">http://runforfun.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ravi Sharma</title>
		<link>http://flexblog.faratasystems.com/2007/01/28/object-oriented-programming-in-actionscript-3-vs-java/comment-page-1#comment-29105</link>
		<dc:creator>Ravi Sharma</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:15:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://flexblog.faratasystems.com/?p=153#comment-29105</guid>
		<description>Hi,

I have a small question to you, that you said AS3 is OOP&#039;s. Then it should have the overriding of Constructor concept?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I have a small question to you, that you said AS3 is OOP&#8217;s. Then it should have the overriding of Constructor concept?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Boris</title>
		<link>http://flexblog.faratasystems.com/2007/01/28/object-oriented-programming-in-actionscript-3-vs-java/comment-page-1#comment-3354</link>
		<dc:creator>Boris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:40:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://flexblog.faratasystems.com/?p=153#comment-3354</guid>
		<description>[  The bulletproof version looks like this:

output.text+=!(p is Function)?&quot;no luck&quot;:p(6); ]

The code is NOT bulletproof. It will crush if objects have the method with the same name but different signature.  With interfaces you will catch the problem at compile time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[  The bulletproof version looks like this:</p>
<p>output.text+=!(p is Function)?"no luck":p(6); ]</p>
<p>The code is NOT bulletproof. It will crush if objects have the method with the same name but different signature.  With interfaces you will catch the problem at compile time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andre</title>
		<link>http://flexblog.faratasystems.com/2007/01/28/object-oriented-programming-in-actionscript-3-vs-java/comment-page-1#comment-2711</link>
		<dc:creator>Andre</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Feb 2007 11:35:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://flexblog.faratasystems.com/?p=153#comment-2711</guid>
		<description>[ Now raise your hand if you are a Java programmer and after reading this article you are thinking to yourself, “Hmm, may be ActionScript 3 is not too bad and I should take a look at it ?” ]

If you are a Java programmer that works with visual interfaces, you&#039;d better hurry and start programming in Flex. All your programs will still be compatible with Java EE archtectures through Flex Data Services.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[ Now raise your hand if you are a Java programmer and after reading this article you are thinking to yourself, “Hmm, may be ActionScript 3 is not too bad and I should take a look at it ?” ]</p>
<p>If you are a Java programmer that works with visual interfaces, you&#8217;d better hurry and start programming in Flex. All your programs will still be compatible with Java EE archtectures through Flex Data Services.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
