till at tillschneidereit.net
Mon May 19 06:43:47 PDT 2014
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Florian Bösch <pyalot at gmail.com> wrote
> Far as I see it, the discussion isn't really about bytecode. It's about
> that you can't quickly/easily tack onto JS everything that's required to
> make it a good virtual machine you can target from another language. asm.js
> is certainly trying, but it's also so far unsupported everywhere but
> Firefox. asm.js does have this problem that it it can't express available
> native types (byte, short, float, long etc.) because it's running in JS,
> which only knows doubles, or ints (appending bit or). And that ain't gonna
> change, because if asm.js starts to rely on functionality (such as type
> annotations for asm.js) that other JS engines don't have, the asm.js code
> won't run anywhere else anymore.
> So the discussion really is about a Web-VM that's got all the trimmings of
> being a good compile target. What intermediary format you deliver to it is
> quite a secondary question.
This discussion is about nothing of the sort: it's purely about where one
can find good arguments against the needs for a bytecode for the web.
Please please please keep it that way: the discussion you and Fred want to
engage in has been had too many times and really isn't a good topic for
this mailing list in any case.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss