Well, if you're simply going to come up with a bytecode to match JS, then you're gonna have the same kinds of issues that typescript, asm.js, dart, etc. have to target it as a compile target. So if you want to make a VM that's a good compile target, ye're gonna have to eventually discuss what that actually means.
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Till Schneidereit < [email protected]> wrote: > 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
