On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Florian Bösch <[email protected]> wrote
> 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. > This discussion is about nothing of the sort: it's purely about where one can find good arguments against the needs for a bytecode for the web. Please please please keep it that way: the discussion you and Fred want to engage in has been had too many times and really isn't a good topic for this mailing list in any case.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
