Thanks for the link. Sounds like that's just what I was looking
for.
On Aug 24, 5:29 pm, "Fred Sauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can read up on a few past discussions on bytecode vs. source, and even
> find Volta references on the contributor's list
> http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
>
> Fred Sauer
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > last I heard MS' Volta was buggy and slow and unacceptable for any
> > serious development. Have things changed?
>
> > from MS' own description, Volta hasn't undergone yet any performance
> > optimizations yethttp://livelabs.com/volta/docs/issues/. I wonder how
> > many underwater road blocks they'll face with that, since MSIL was
> > designed before the MSIL to javascript compilation process was
> > conceived.
>
> > On Aug 24, 7:59 am, "Ian Bambury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > As I see it:
>
> > > Bytecode is intended for a JVM. As such you would either have to emulate
> > a
> > > JVM in JavaScript or at least partially reverse engineer the bytecode to
> > a
> > > point where you could optimise it. The compiler out put would be pretty
> > much
> > > unreadable (no -pretty available) so developing the compiler would be n
> > > times more difficult. Never mind less optimised and more stages to the
> > > compile.
>
> > > There would also be no way to stop people trying to compile any old byte
> > > code they produced whereas now if it ain't emulated, you can't use it.
>
> > > I'm sure there are people who would prefer to write in Fortran or Visual
> > > Turing, but Google will have a budget for GWT and can get more features
> > in
> > > GWT faster this way.
>
> > > You're hungry, someone offers you a free lunch, and you start moaning
> > that
> > > you can't pick the restaurant. :-)
>
> > > Ian
>
> > > 2008/8/24 Juan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > > > I don't see how using byte code would be any better than using source
> > > > > code, since the source code has just as much information.
>
> > > > It's not about having more information, it's about the possibility of
> > > > using other JVM supported languages. Language lock-in seems like a
> > > > severe limitation for a platform like the JVM -that it's clearly
> > > > evolving into a multi-language platform-
>
> > > > > GWT probably couldn't generate fast JavaScript if it used Ruby
> > instead
> > > > > of Java, because it wouldn't have the type information it needs for
> > > > > optimization.
>
> > > > I assume this is only your guess. Anyway MS seems to be following this
> > > > way so soon we will see how fast it's (anyway I don't see why it
> > > > should be slower than Ruby -as they are both dynamically typed
> > > > languages-)
>
> > > > Anyway I was just wondering if anyone did know some solid reason as
> > > > why they didn't use bytecode interpretation.
>
> > > > Juan
>
> > > --
> > > Ianhttp://examples.roughian.com
> > > _______________________________________
>
> > > Stuff the environment - Print this email
> > > _______________________________________
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google Web Toolkit" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
