> I think you need evidence to justify your gut ("WHOA") reaction.Agreed. > I'll be first to admit we need evidence to prove the incremental cost of > ES4 over ES3 is not excessive, but participants in Ecma TC39 who > believe this can be done are targeting mobile devices and working on > real, small footprint implementations right now (e.g. ESC plus > Tamarin Tracing). OK, good to hear. > Anyway, whatever the jump in JS evolution (ES3.1, > ES4), IMHO there's no "third" way that forces a static language and > offline/AOT compilation. Yeah I know. But it seemed worth raising the point at this juncture. I appreciate hearing your comments about this, and will take a look at the blog posts about dynamic vs. static on the web. > Why do you believe static typing is necessary for performance? Just > curious. Good question. I have a vague impression that the cache size required to achieve performance when dynamic typing is significantly larger than JIT-ing statically typed code. That is, it either cost performance or memory, and the memory cost became unacceptable. But my thinking developed at a time when we didn't have so many MBs to throw around. Maybe in an era of streaming video, it has become less of an issue. ~TMSteve _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
