repeated with less quotation
> > On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Russell Leggett <russell.legg...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:18 PM, John J Barton >> <johnjbar...@johnjbarton.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Russell Leggett < >> russell.legg...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> Sometimes going beyond ASTs is extremely challenging - but OK, let's >> just say we reach a point where we have tools good enough that they >> can read in code that has been run through a build tool so that they >> can actually evaluate an entire code base as it would be delivered to >> the browser. Now what? Do you think that any tool will do a better job >> of runtime analysis than the tracing JITs that browsers have now? > > > Yes, because the analysis that aids development is not the same as the > analysis needed for JIT. > > The >> whole goal for advanced JavaScript compilers is to be able to take a >> JavaScript program which is incredibly mutable and unconstrained, and >> pin down what the constraints actually are to generate better code. >> These constraints are what we're talking about, the ability to make >> certain guarantees. In the case of JavaScript, some of those >> guarantees are hard to make, whether statically, or at runtime. >> Additional syntax is a way of adding certain guarantees and I am not >> entirely opposed to that. That doesn't mean I want to throw everything >> including the kitchen sink in. >> > > And I think we should keep the pressure on the JIT geniuses to continue to > deliver ever better performance without making developers add syntax, esp > when the additions are based on incomplete or version specific information. > > jjb > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
