On 11/02/2011 14:54, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
On 11.02.2011 17:51, Chris Heilmann wrote:
On 11/02/2011 14:35, Peter van der Zee wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Adrian Olaru <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I'm just wondering, why don't we have by now a Lua alternative
to JavaScript in the browsers?
Shouldn't the question by "why do we need an alternative"? We tried
Java in the browser - that didn't work.
I think the answer is simple -- someone knows Lua (Python/Ruby/etc)
better than JS and wants to user Lua. Someone thinks that Coffee is
more elegant than JS -- and want to use Coffee. That's why there
always should be alternatives.
Yeah, I know how to sing pretty well. That doesn't make a good actor.
Different languages have different goals. JavaScript was made to be
interpreted in the browser - lightweight and fast. Other languages were
meant to be on a server. If I want to hire someone now to build me a
great web app I try to find someone who knows JavaScript, if we start
adding more compilers it becomes tougher again. It is hard enough to
find people who know JavaScript rather than just how to apply libraries.
Browsers are big as they are right now - adding more compilers IMHO just
adds more complexity without much gain.
--
To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To search via a non-Google archive, visit here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
