pyalot at gmail.com
Mon May 19 06:55:29 PDT 2014
So just so I get this straight. You're talking about a bytecode format,
which implies some kind of revamped features/VM to run it, but you won't be
discussing anything other than ECMAScript as the targeting semantic. Sorry
to say, but then that's a pretty useless discussion entirely.
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Till Schneidereit <
till at tillschneidereit.net> wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Florian Bösch <pyalot at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> Yes. But then this list would still not be the right venue, as that
> bytecode wouldn't be EcmaScript. So this is off-topic regardless of what
> you think of the merits of such a discussion.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss