On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:18 PM, C. Scott Ananian <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Mameri, Fred (HBO) > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> maintaining performance and debuggability would be nice. But for me, >> the main benefit of the bytecode is having my engineering team be able to >> adopt newer versions of the language at our convenience (instead of waiting >> 10 years until some ancient client updates their script engine)… >> > > You may want to look into the following: coffeescript, traceur, dart, > es6-shim (etc). > --scott > Far as I see it, the discussion isn't really about bytecode. It's about that you can't quickly/easily tack onto JS everything that's required to make it a good virtual machine you can target from another language. asm.js is certainly trying, but it's also so far unsupported everywhere but Firefox. asm.js does have this problem that it it can't express available native types (byte, short, float, long etc.) because it's running in JS, which only knows doubles, or ints (appending bit or). And that ain't gonna change, because if asm.js starts to rely on functionality (such as type annotations for asm.js) that other JS engines don't have, the asm.js code won't run anywhere else anymore. So the discussion really is about a Web-VM that's got all the trimmings of being a good compile target. What intermediary format you deliver to it is quite a secondary question.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
