Thanks, Jens Axel, Raoul, and Robby.
Different question... For support for writing polished Web browser (and
PhoneGap) apps in Racket, any comments on which of the following two
options is better (viable, easier to implement and maintain, better
performance, etc.)?
1. Implement Racket VM in JS, along with implementing support libraries
in JS, and interpret `.zo` files at runtime.
2. Forget about `eval`, require apps to be compilable on development
host (but not necessarily runnable there), implement compiler from `.zo`
to JS (managing TCO, etc.), implement small Racket runtime library in
JS, implement browser facilities and/or GUI libraries in JS. Later
think about `eval`.[*]
[*] I've only done a very brief peek at sample `zo-parse` and
`decompile` output, so I don't know how tricky it can get, but the
little I saw looked like a static translation to JS wouldn't be too
difficult. I don't know how necessary `eval` is if you have bytecode,
nor how much of the primitives would have to be implemented manually
rather than translated from `.zo`.
Neil V.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
