Why would javascript ever go there? The javascript engine in a browser is for client side stuff. There's absolutely no need for a VM instruction set. If must avoid writing javascript, then, well, avoid it. Tools like GWT show that you can write in a completely different language (other than the similar names, java and javascript are entirely different beasts), and yet end up running on a vanilla browser install.
If you want to run an all-desktop app via browser, clearly you need some what one might traditionally call "server side" elements here. Possibly javascript will evolve to offer these features too but I don't think this is a particularly good fit for that language. Much simpler to use JS for client-side stuff, and then whatever you're comfortable with (i.e. java, with its DB bindings, threads, file and socket APIs, and much faster numeric math options) for the "server side" stuff. On Nov 5, 11:16 am, Carl Jokl <[email protected]> wrote: > I hope it may be a good sign that others are thinking on the same > lines as I have been thinking too for some time. Albeit I am not sure > if it will happen. > > Considering Flash, Java and .Net amongst others all have some kind of > Virtual Machine. It would be good it the "JavaScript" engine were a > virtual machine too supporting some kind of bytecode. This means that > it could be targeted by any compiler which could compile to that > bytecode. > > In terms of supporting all the languages. Support for the languages > may not be so much of the issue. It is really a matter of the API's. > Saying that something cannot be called Java because it doesn't support > the whole JavaSE API set may not be a fair statement. We already have > had JavaME which is branded as "Java" but only supports a much more > limited set of APIs which are suited to that platform. > > In that case would it not be reasonable then to have a JavaWE (Web > Edition) or JavaBE (Browser Edition), such that the APIs are limited > to just those which are supported currently by JavaScript. > > Needless to say JavaScript doesn't support anything like the rich > functionality that Java or .Net do but surely you have to start > somewhere. If broad support for the browser VM came into place then > expanding the functionality could be done bit by bit via the W3C. In > the case of things like Flash, JavaFX and Silverlight it may be that > the functionality needed for those could be provided by loading > additional libraries beyond the core "Browser JM Libraries" to provide > that functionality. > > The aspect that could make it interesting is the prospect of > seamlessly pass objects from server to client back to server the way > thick clients have been able to such as with RMI, RPC, CORBA etc. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" 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/javaposse?hl=en.
