I suspect it can be if you use Nashorn. On sandboxing, we could potentially look into experimenting with PNaCl as a backend. Or use existing sandboxes that exist across all browsers by compiling to js with Emscripten, or WebAssembly as that develops.
On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 10:17:06 AM UTC-7, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > Is JavaScript actually easy to integrate with Java? > > On Aug 26, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Fengyang Wang <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > Hi, > > I learned Julia recently, and I must say it has been incredible for > scientific work. I am in love with the clean, modern syntax. Props to the > developers for their tireless efforts to improve this language even further! > > Historically, Lua and Javascript have been the most common choices for > scripting languages in larger projects... Lua because it is so easy to > integrate with C(++), and Javascript primarily because it is so easy to > integrate with Java. I would like Julia to fill this role for one of my > current projects, but I have identified some hurdles. > > 1. For now, security is not important because scripts are assumed to > be trusted. However, a plan for scripts to eventually be downloaded from > the Internet is in the works. I could not find a Julia sandbox, however. > Does such a sandbox exist? > 2. My customers may not necessarily be computer-literate, and I can't > expect them to install Julia. Also, due to the rapid pace of Julia > development, it may be advantageous to install a portable Julia entirely > for this project only. My project currently targets Windows, Linux, and > Mac > OSX. Is there a portable way to install a portable Julia, or will I have > to > create separate installation code for each OS? > 3. My current understanding is that I should write the public API in > Julia, and use ccall internally to call back into my project. Is this the > correct method? > > Thanks in advance! > >
