pyalot at gmail.com
Mon May 19 06:46:24 PDT 2014
Well, if you're simply going to come up with a bytecode to match JS, then
you're gonna have the same kinds of issues that typescript, asm.js, dart,
etc. have to target it as a compile target. So if you want to make a VM
that's a good compile target, ye're gonna have to eventually discuss what
that actually means.
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Till Schneidereit <
till at tillschneidereit.net> wrote:
> 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