3 ms·
The problem is how easy (or not) it is to interface scala.js with third party libraries not written in scala. js. I doubt scala has the same semantics as Javasc
by spriggan3 11y ago
The problem is how easy (or not) it is to interface scala.js with third party libraries not written in scala. js. I doubt scala has the same semantics as Javascript. If the semantics are too different it's not going to work unless you expect your engineers to write everything from scratch. Also there is a the speed factor. Is compiling to JS fast ? what kind of code does it produces ? how big ? is it easy to take a library written in Scala.js then interface it with plain old Javascript ? ect ... It's definitly not a culture problem, I believe using Scala.js or Gopher.js or Opal(Ruby) or any language which semantics are too different from Javascript is just not pragmatic.
- sjrd 11y agoI wonder how much of your comment follows from past experiences with other compile-to-JS languages. Scala.js solved all the problems you mention. * Performance is on par with hand-written JavaScript. * The compiler and optimizer are incremental so they compile your code in 1-2 seconds for significant codebases. * Interoperability is as easy as in TypeScript: just use type definitions for external JS libraries and then transparently call them. It's all explained from the big boxes on the page of https://www.scala-js.org/ https://www.scala-js.org/ Don't let your past experiences give you wrong impression of Scala.js.