Not exactly - ActionScript3 is pretty much as close as you can get to what JavaScript2 would have been - Ecmascript 4.

...yeah, what was to be a beautiful language. So unfortunate that that proposal was squashed.

No, thank Thor that mutant was aborted. ECMAScript 4 got everything wrong, just like AS3 did.

An optionally dynamic, yet also statically typed language? Umm... no. It's hard to even imagine arguing about this.

No. The problem with ES4 was that JavaScript is at heart not a traditional procedural OOP language. It's a functional language, and ES4 was trying to change that, a huge step in the wrong direction. They wanted more Java and less Script, but thankfully ES5 has gone the other direction, and given use more Script and less Java.

I find it very difficult to swallow anything written by the OP from the obstructed view at Adobe. After spending nearly every billable hour for more than three years buried in AS3's woeful inconsistencies, undocumented (or un-addressed) compiler issues, seemingly infinite application-crippling bugs, schizophrenic deprecation- any dev who had the misfortune of being relegated to work primarily in AS3 (and god help you if you had to support AS2 and AS3 applications simultaneously) the mere suggestion that Adobe has an opinion that is anything but a head up its own ass probably makes you break out in hives like i just did.

Oh come on. AS3 isn't that bad.