I think any interested party ought to be able to try the decompiler route and see what happens. God knows how weird it might look, but I see no obvious reason that it shouldn't work. Takers?
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Ian Petersen <ispet...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Joel Webber <j...@google.com> wrote: > > scalac + a decompiler ought to do the trick, roughly. But you'd still end > up > > with a bunch of big ugly Java constructs for things like functions, case > > classes, pattern matching, and the like. And while I'd love to see what > > would happen to that code if you ran it through gwtc, I'm guessing it > would > > be rather suboptimal relative to what you'd get if you took the (scala -> > > (some better IR) -> js) path. > > It might be worth it to make scalac -> decompiler -> gwtc a supported > option, just to find out how much interest there really is in Scala -> > JS. If there's only three people in the world who want Scala -> JS, > it's really up to Lex if he wants to spend his lunches supporting > them. On the other hand, there might be enough people interested in > Scala -> JS that it's worth putting a hold on the Java -> JS polish to > get proper support for Scala working RSN. > > Just a thought. > > Ian > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
