1. True, but whether or not this is good or bad is subjective.
2. It (AS2 & JS) has functions as a first class type that you can define anywhere, but it does not have inline functions in the commonly accepted C/C++ sense of the definition. Actual inline function support as included in haxe can be hugely important on devices with underpowered CPUs since making a function call has significant overhead in ActionScript when you are running on a dinky ARMv5 core. With inline functions there is no function call thus no overhead (at the cost of making the 'compiled' code larger, which is often a perfectly fine tradeoff).
3. I love the type system, so again I guess this is subjective.
4. There is some truth to this but it is easy to encapsulate code that has to be platform aware (generally UI stuff) into libraries and then keep your primary app code platform independent.
As to #2, I think georgemcbay is talking about where the contents of a short function can be copied into the place where it's called (as with the 'inline' keyword in C or C++), thus avoiding the overhead of a function call [1], whereas it sounds like rabidsnail is talking about inner or nested functions, which you can do in JavaScript [2].
2. It (AS2 & JS) has functions as a first class type that you can define anywhere, but it does not have inline functions in the commonly accepted C/C++ sense of the definition. Actual inline function support as included in haxe can be hugely important on devices with underpowered CPUs since making a function call has significant overhead in ActionScript when you are running on a dinky ARMv5 core. With inline functions there is no function call thus no overhead (at the cost of making the 'compiled' code larger, which is often a perfectly fine tradeoff).
3. I love the type system, so again I guess this is subjective.
4. There is some truth to this but it is easy to encapsulate code that has to be platform aware (generally UI stuff) into libraries and then keep your primary app code platform independent.