Talk:ActionScript

message: Is this article a tutorial?
A history of development?
A technical description of the language?
A technical summary of the language?
A non-technical summary of the language?
The article tries to be all of these, and fails.
"Features of the Flash ActionScript implementation that JavaScript programmers may find interesting:[citation needed]"
Why is a citation needed? Does the citation need to provide support for "JavaScript programmers may find interesting" (author can cite himself), for the points that follow (cite the online ActionScript reference manuals), or both?
"ActionScript code is frequently written directly in the Flash authoring environment, which offers reference, code hints and syntax highlighting.[citation needed]"
Cite the frickin' manuals! Or cite the product! The information can be gathered by reading the manuals or actually using Flash Studio.
In the Criticism section: "This article or section does not cite its references or sources."
How should one go about citing the umpteen billion news group posts griping about ActionScript?
I suggest that someone rewrite the entire article.
Start by determining exactly what the article should and should not cover.
Then write the content.
Don't place "citation needed" tags on statements that are easily verifiable by reading the manuals or actually using the product.
Eliminate "some say" type crap. Replace with actual examples of problems, so nobody can demand that there be a citation of the umpteen billion news group posts.
Or, just say this:
ActionScript is a programming language for scripting Adobe Flash movies.
68.144.78.176 06:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did brief editing to this article before and agree that it really just needs a remake. It's too littered to be easily "fixed". —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 12:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, the "citation needed" is there because the statements are flawed. They are unencyclopedic. If there are "things that some programmers find interesting", then there should be a reputable source that makes this statement. And even if the manual is the source to some of these statements, then the manual should be added as source to that particular statement. It's got to do with Wikipedia:Verifiability. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 12:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article suffers from too many cooks in the kitchen. 

message: ;Overview
:Discuss the type of language ActionScript is,
;History
:The history of the language, but no extensive difference examples of AS 1.0, 2.0, 3.0.
;Syntax
:Discuss the syntax, show "hello world" example. Discuss differences AS 1.0, 2.0, 3.0.
;Criticism
;Related languages
;References
;Footnotes
;See also
;Further reading
This is my first draft of what the rewrite of this article should be about. Embrace and extend it. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 13:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite; what should this article be about? 

message: Hi
Just want to bring to the attention of the authors of this article that the Adobe ActionScript VM source has been release under a open source license together with Mozilla. 
Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 15:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now Open Source 

message: Hi,
This is some proposed content for the ActionScript wikipedia page. I hope that this provides some of the details people are looking for so that this page can be completed and the community approves of it. There are also more overview articles and details on the ActionScript Technolgy Center here: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/actionscript/
ActionScript language spec: http://livedocs.macromedia.com/specs/actionscript/3/as3_specification.html
ActionScript 3.0 Language Reference: http://www.adobe.com/go/programmingAS3
ActionScript 2.0 Language Reference: http://livedocs.macromedia.com/flash/8/main/wwhelp/wwhimpl/js/html/wwhelp.htm?href=Part4_ASLR2.html
Sincerely,
Emmy Huang
Product Manager, Adobe Flash Player
http://weblogs.macromedia.com/emmy
192.150.10.200 06:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed content for ActionScript Overview 

message: This example:
var item1:XML=new XML("<node><child/></node>");
delete item1;
//If no other reference to item1 is present anywhere else in the application,
//it will be removed on the garbage collector's next pass
...is WRONG. It probably doesn't even compile with strict mode flag on. Even if it does, the statement "delete item1;" does absolutely nothing. Operator delete's sole purpose is to delete properties on dynamic objects. To make references eligible for garbage collection you set their values to null (e.g. "item1 = null;"). When it comes to XML, (and only because XML happens to be a dynamic class) you can use operator delete to remove nodes from the object, but never to do what the article claims. If anyone has any doubts, read the official documentation.
Maybe there's other mistakes in there, but I did not read the whole thing. Also, there seems to be a little too much code on this page. Just thought I'd point that out.
213.22.55.25 (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I think that this article and the rewrite are too confusing. What if some one doesn't know what EMCAScript or Syntax is? I think it should be written more clearly. Waterbender Kara ☺
:I too think that it should. I started the rewrite but didn't have enough time to make it useful. The article as it is right now is almost completely useless. —msikma (user, talk) 15:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - is the text I proposed still too confusing? There is already a reference entry for ECMAScript on Wikipedia.
--216.104.211.5 22:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that the proposed rewrite is too technical, this is not supposed to be an introduction to programming languages. Compare the proposed rewrite with articles on JavaScript, Java or other programming/scripting languages.
Membla 13:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm planning on doing some copyediting to the page. While it's much better than the original already, there are some parts that need rewording (I find that some parts may seem a bit pro-ActionScript, which might get complaints from users who find it unbalanced). There's also no "criticism" section yet, which is vital to any article. It doesn't need to be large, but I think that it should be there. Then, lastly, there's references; I'll just tag whichever claims need source citing. —msikma (user, talk) 06:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the ActionScript 2.0 example. One of the best things about 2.0 is the fact that it isn't necessary to use classes or functions. I don't believe that code snippet really symbolizes the usability of ActionScript2.0 Tkgd2007 (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback on the proposed rewrite 

message: Please help out completing the following infobox. Membla 13:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost done. We just need to find a release date of ActionScript 3.0. —msikma (user, talk) 21:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found that and made some other additions, what about other paradigms? Membla 00:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Can somebody clarify this? There's a single list which near the top has "Flash Lite 2.1: Added support for Flash 7 ActionScript 2.0." and then much later "Flash Player 7: ... also support ActionScript 2.0,". MarkMLl 21:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time line by player 

message: The article that appear here, I think is too complete in the Syntax section, It should removed (my suggestion). Or, if you still want to add the syntax section, use the new article page such as Syntax in ActionScript. The reason is: For the common reader (non-programmer) that article should make them confused (for me It's okay because I'm a programmer). So I encourage you to make article separation. Basically other element on the ActionScript article is good enough. Oh yeah, almost forgot. Can you add the comparison between the ActionScript and JavaScript? Because it appear that you said that ActionScript was influenced by JavaScript. Ivan Akira (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Complete or... 

message: It is claimed that ActionScript is type safe. As it is very difficult to prove Type safety for a language, is it claimed by Adobe, or has it been proved ? Hervegirod (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type safety 

message: For the tutorials / resource sites link to in the external links section, may I suggest Foundation Flash? I thought I would throw it into the mix for public debate, as per  E.L. Guidelines, because I feel it does fit all the guidelines (main intent is not commercial and so forth).
Your thoughts please?
--Jarry1250 (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I recently went to read this article and I found that half the article is made up of code samples. There is very little actual content in the article. Wikipedia is not a documentation, so this needs to be cleaned up. I'll start removing unneeded stuff when I have the time, but it would be great if I had some help. Thanks. — FatalError 20:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a documentation? 

message: This article is filled with useless junk. This article tries to be an encyclopedia entry, an ActionScript reference, a tutorial, and a few more things. I think the syntax section should be completely rewritten, to something more like this:
===Syntax===
ActionScript is based on ECMAScript, a standard for object-oriented programming. EMCAScript is what powers JavaScript. ActionScript 1 and 2 run on the same virtual machine, VM1. They use classes and methods to interact with the Flash environment. ActionScript 3.0 brought ActionScript closer to the EMCAScript standard, and ran on a new virtual machine, VM2.
Honestly, a better idea would be to get rid of the Syntax section and replace it with a more organized system, but feel free to add on to this (rather small) base. I'm Jake9 "Da' Pie!" 22:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Encyclopedia, Less Tutorial 

message: ActionScript is based on ECMAScript, a standard for object-oriented programming. EMCAScript is what powers JavaScript. ActionScript 1 and 2 run on the same virtual machine, VM1. They use classes and methods to interact with the Flash environment. ActionScript 3.0 brought ActionScript closer to the EMCAScript standard, and ran on a new virtual machine, VM2.
Honestly, a better idea would be to get rid of the Syntax section and replace it with a more organized system, but feel free to add on to this (rather small) base. I'm Jake9 "Da' Pie!" 22:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Syntax

message: You really have two states of Action Script, pre ActionScript 3.0, and post ActionScript 3.0. They should be talked about separately, and in their own sections. For instance
-brief overview- 
-Pre ActionScript 3.0- 
History
Syntax
DataTypes
-ActionScript 3.0-
History
Syntax
DataTypes
Actionscript 3.0, syntax wise is something like 98% like JavaScript, as previously stated the syntax section needs to be drawn back, I don't think it should be removed because syntax is core to any programming language.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanDMWagner (talk • contribs) 20:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructure 

message: The date in the infobox lists ActionScript as introduced in 1998; but the text says that "with the release of Flash 5 in September 2000, the "actions" from Flash 4 were enhanced once more and named "ActionScript" for the first time." Which would be the more accurate date for the "release" of ActionScript? 192.12.12.178 (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: date of initiation

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on ActionScript. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060818085731/http://www.macupdate.com:80/reviews.php?id=11541 to http://www.macupdate.com/reviews.php?id=11541
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Concerning editing and maintaining JavaScript-related articles...
=== Collaboration...===
If you are interested in collaborating on JavaScript articles or would like to see where you could help, stop by Wikipedia:WikiProject JavaScript and feel free to add your name to the participants list. Both editors and programmers are welcome.
 
=== Where to list JavaScript articles ===
We've found over 300 JavaScript-related articles so far. If you come across any others, please add them to that list. 
=== User scripts ===
The WikiProject is also taking on the organization of the Wikipedia community's user script support pages. If you are interested in helping to organize information on the user scripts (or are curious about what we are up to), let us know!
If you have need for a user script that does not 
yet exist, or you have a cool idea for a user script or gadget, you can post it at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests. And if you are a JavaScript programmer, that's a great place to find tasks if you are bored.
=== How to report JavaScript articles in need of attention ===
If you come across a JavaScript article desperately in need of editor attention, and it's beyond your ability to handle, you can add it to our list of JavaScript-related articles that need attention.
=== Rating JavaScript articles ===
At the top of the talk page of most every JavaScript-related article is a WikiProject JavaScript template where you can record the quality class and importance of the article.  Doing so will help the community track the stage of completion and watch the highest priority articles more closely.
Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintenance and rating of JavaScript articles 

message: At the top of the talk page of most every JavaScript-related article is a WikiProject JavaScript template where you can record the quality class and importance of the article.  Doing so will help the community track the stage of completion and watch the highest priority articles more closely.
Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating JavaScript articles 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on ActionScript. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071102191956/http://livedocs.adobe.com/flash/9.0/main/wwhelp/wwhimpl/common/html/wwhelp.htm?context=LiveDocs_Parts&file=00000047.html to http://livedocs.adobe.com/flash/9.0/main/wwhelp/wwhimpl/common/html/wwhelp.htm?context=LiveDocs_Parts&file=00000047.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article should clearly explain that it is going to stop releases in 2020 and what that entails. Also, as usual, even though it is to cease at the end of 2020, we should leave it at "–present" in the heading until such time as it is actually retired. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Termination in 2020?