5 ms·

Actually, there are people using Scala.js to run Scala on AWS lambda, precisely for that reason. * https://github.com/tptodorov/aws-lambda-scalajs https://gith

by sjrd 10y ago

Actually, there are people using Scala.js to run Scala on AWS lambda, precisely for that reason. * https://github.com/tptodorov/aws-lambda-scalajs https://github.com/tptodorov/aws-lambda-scalajs * http://underscore.io/blog/posts/2016/03/21/serverless-scale-summit.html http://underscore.io/blog/posts/2016/03/21/serverless-scale-...

acjohnson55 10y ago
^ From the creator of Scala.js :) I am excited that now there will be an option for getting both quick startup and fastest execution time!
danaliv 10y ago
Sure, but it'd be nice not to have everything in the known universe depend on JavaScript.
- sjrd 10y ago
  Absolutely! I'm just pointing out that this need is so strong that people have reached for the slow throughput of Scala.js just to get its fast startup time. If we can have both, that's even better!
  - edko 10y ago
    No intention of arguing with Scala.js' creator :-) But, I do not think it has a "slow throughput" at all. In my experience, it's had pretty good performance.
    - sjrd 10y ago
      Oh it does have pretty good performance, on par with hand-written JavaScript. But that's still 3x slower than Scala/JVM on our benchmarks, and those benchmarks are ported from the Octane benchmark suite used by V8 (so supposedly that's where V8 shines). Everything is relative. Scala.js remains significantly slower than Scala/JVM in terms of throughput.
- zepolen 10y ago
  I disagree. Having a common language in many places has led to huge improvements over the board in the JS ecosystem, it's become the "C" of the modern era, and you can build a lot of stuff on the foundations that others have laid. I still hate JS though.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    Which is anything but positive, as it also shares C's style of unsafety due to its semantics.
    - oldrny 10y ago
      Javascript performs unchecked memory accesses? Or are you alluding to their both being weakly typed?
      - pjmlp 10y ago
        No,but implicit conversions, including from operators into numeric values isn't much better. The amount of page differences between "JavaScript the good parts" and the actual language reference speaks for itself.
        Oxitendwe 10y ago
        One might argue the same point based on the fact that there even exists a book called "JavaScript: The Good Parts".
        notgood 10y ago
        That book was created before many alternatives came out; now if you are working in a team project you should look at JavaScript the same way you look at assembler, you know it will be the final thing but you shouldn't be creating it directly, but instead "compiling" from TypeScript, ELM, etc. (langs with no implicit conversions, strong typing, etc)
        10y ago
agumonkey 10y ago
Saw the same for clojure. People used clojurescript/plank for live dev.

by sjrd 10y ago

acjohnson55 10y ago

^ From the creator of Scala.js :) I am excited that now there will be an option for getting both quick startup and fastest execution time!

danaliv 10y ago

Sure, but it'd be nice not to have everything in the known universe depend on JavaScript.

sjrd 10y ago
Absolutely! I'm just pointing out that this need is so strong that people have reached for the slow throughput of Scala.js just to get its fast startup time. If we can have both, that's even better!
- edko 10y ago
  No intention of arguing with Scala.js' creator :-) But, I do not think it has a "slow throughput" at all. In my experience, it's had pretty good performance.
  - sjrd 10y ago
    Oh it does have pretty good performance, on par with hand-written JavaScript. But that's still 3x slower than Scala/JVM on our benchmarks, and those benchmarks are ported from the Octane benchmark suite used by V8 (so supposedly that's where V8 shines). Everything is relative. Scala.js remains significantly slower than Scala/JVM in terms of throughput.
zepolen 10y ago
I disagree. Having a common language in many places has led to huge improvements over the board in the JS ecosystem, it's become the "C" of the modern era, and you can build a lot of stuff on the foundations that others have laid. I still hate JS though.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  Which is anything but positive, as it also shares C's style of unsafety due to its semantics.
  - oldrny 10y ago
    Javascript performs unchecked memory accesses? Or are you alluding to their both being weakly typed?
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      No,but implicit conversions, including from operators into numeric values isn't much better. The amount of page differences between "JavaScript the good parts" and the actual language reference speaks for itself.
      - Oxitendwe 10y ago
        One might argue the same point based on the fact that there even exists a book called "JavaScript: The Good Parts".
      - notgood 10y ago
        That book was created before many alternatives came out; now if you are working in a team project you should look at JavaScript the same way you look at assembler, you know it will be the final thing but you shouldn't be creating it directly, but instead "compiling" from TypeScript, ELM, etc. (langs with no implicit conversions, strong typing, etc)
        10y ago

agumonkey 10y ago

Saw the same for clojure. People used clojurescript/plank for live dev.