Herbert Snorrason wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 22:48:42 +0100, liorean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CLR, JVM and C/C++ implementations exists. As parrot is supposed to be
better for dynamic languages, I guess EcmaScript 3.0 would fit right
in with parrot.
I'd love to contribute. Could one write
On Nov 28, 2004, at 4:58 AM, Herbert Snorrason wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:49:49 -0500, Michael G Schwern
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 09:58:44PM +, Herbert Snorrason wrote:
It should. EcmaScript is also a relatively small language, which
would
work strongly in its
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 01:44:42 -0800, Jeff Clites [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 28, 2004, at 4:58 AM, Herbert Snorrason wrote:
You cheated:
Revised^5 Report on the Algorithmic Language Scheme: 50 pages.
Actually, I didn't look for that. Interesting info. Admittedly, I also
missed ISO 7185,
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:49:49 -0500, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 09:58:44PM +, Herbert Snorrason wrote:
It should. EcmaScript is also a relatively small language, which would
work strongly in its advantage...
A 188 page language spec is small
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Absolutely. Compilers do *not* have to be integrated in with parrot --
my current work project uses Parrot as its back end, but the compiler's
written in perl as a standalone program. Works just fine. (Though a
Javascript compiler written in Javascript could bootstrap itself
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 12:37:03 +0100, James Mastros [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Absolutely. Compilers do *not* have to be integrated in with parrot -- my
current work project uses Parrot as its back end, but the compiler's
written in perl as a standalone program. Works
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 23:03:32 +0100, liorean [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We'll see how I'll do it eventually. Right now I've just begun working
on a lexer and parser. It would be easy to do if I dropped regular
expressions support, but the regular expressions syntax makes the
lexer dependent upon the
At 10:48 PM +0100 11/27/04, liorean wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:11:07 +, Herbert Snorrason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:43:01 +0100, liorean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are there any projects to create an implementation of
EcmaScript/JavaScript that will run on top
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:48 PM +0100 11/27/04, liorean wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:11:07 +, Herbert Snorrason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:43:01 +0100, liorean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are there any projects to create an implementation of
EcmaScript/JavaScript
Sam Ruby writes:
Overall, JavaScript would be a good match for Parrot. One place where
it would significantly diverge at the moment is in the concept of a
class. Objects in JavaScript are little more than bundles of
properites, some of which may be functions. And classes are essentially
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:30:20 -0500, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Probably the best base to start with is Rhino, which is a standalone open
source JavaScript compiler written in Java - originally done by the
JavaScript team at NetScape. This code is quite good. And coincidentally is
On Nov 27, 2004, at 5:58 PM, liorean wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:30:20 -0500, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Overall, JavaScript would be a good match for Parrot. One place
where it would significantly diverge at the moment is in the concept
of a class. Objects in JavaScript are little
Jeff Clites wrote:
On Nov 27, 2004, at 5:58 PM, liorean wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:30:20 -0500, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Overall, JavaScript would be a good match for Parrot. One place
where it would significantly diverge at the moment is in the concept
of a class. Objects in
13 matches
Mail list logo
