3 ms·

> No, because javascript isn't machine code, it's a high-level interpreted language. The metaphor of javascript as "bytecode" is just that - a metaphor. This i

> No, because javascript isn't machine code, it's a high-level interpreted language. The metaphor of javascript as "bytecode" is just that - a metaphor. This is a psychological distinction, not a technical one. There is no fundamental difference between machine code, byte code, or a “real” programming language. There were machines that executed lisp, and at the dawn of time people programmed in assembly. Heck, people programmed in machine code (punch cards) and assembly was a programming language! Scala introduces a hell of a lot of “new primitives” over jvm bytecode, and type erasure compiles it all down to the jvm anyway. Or JavaScript, if you use scala.js. This is, in fact, precisely what compilers do (or transpilers—again: psychological distinction, technically the same thing). That is their job, their function: translating from one language into another. As long as both are Turing complete, you can do anything.

z3t4 9y ago
It's funny when languages like C where you have to baby-sit the memory handler "compiles" to JavaScript, where all memory handling is completely abstracted.
krapp 9y ago
Ten hours later and it's obvious from the all but unanimous negativity that I'm wrong about something. But, I don't think the distinction is entirely psychological. Every numeric type is implemented in javascript as a floating point Number, that's all javascript has. New types aren't added to javascript when other languages compile to it, they're compensated for within the limits of what a javascript parser considers valid code, either through existing javascript types or facades which imitate types. Whatever Scala or any other language considers an Int, BigInt, Double, etc. must still be implemented as a Number when compiled to javascript, or some object which imitates the semantics of the original language. But an Int() object in javascript is still not an integer. It doesn't make sense to say that languages which compile to javascript add anything to the language. Or maybe I just don't understand types, and they really do, and it really doesn't matter. But to me, the distinction seems to matter. I should probably stop tilting at this particular windmill, though.

z3t4 9y ago

It's funny when languages like C where you have to baby-sit the memory handler "compiles" to JavaScript, where all memory handling is completely abstracted.

krapp 9y ago

Ten hours later and it's obvious from the all but unanimous negativity that I'm wrong about something. But, I don't think the distinction is entirely psychological. Every numeric type is implemented in javascript as a floating point Number, that's all javascript has. New types aren't added to javascript when other languages compile to it, they're compensated for within the limits of what a javascript parser considers valid code, either through existing javascript types or facades which imitate types. Whatever Scala or any other language considers an Int, BigInt, Double, etc. must still be implemented as a Number when compiled to javascript, or some object which imitates the semantics of the original language. But an Int() object in javascript is still not an integer. It doesn't make sense to say that languages which compile to javascript add anything to the language. Or maybe I just don't understand types, and they really do, and it really doesn't matter. But to me, the distinction seems to matter. I should probably stop tilting at this particular windmill, though.