3 ms·
Or you can just compile a language you want to javascript. Treat it like assembly. You can be glad it works, but you'd rather not write in it directly. Examples
by DanielRibeiro 16y ago
Or you can just compile a language you want to javascript. Treat it like assembly. You can be glad it works, but you'd rather not write in it directly. Examples of such: coffescript (http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/ http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/) for those who like python/ruby, ruby (though this is not perfect: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3593312/production-usage-of-compiling-ruby-red-to-javascript http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3593312/production-usage-...), GWT (somewhat butchered java -> javasscript) and scriptjure (http://github.com/arohner/scriptjure http://github.com/arohner/scriptjure Clojure -> javascript).
- auxbuss 16y agoAlso, Fantom can generate javascript http://fantom.org/ http://fantom.org/
- contextfree 16y agoIf we're going to be doing that, wouldn't it maybe be better to compile to something that was actually designed as a compilation target (like the JVM/CLR - which are apparently the dread scourges JavaScript saved us from - or LLVM) rather than roping in an HLL not designed for the job?
- DanielRibeiro 16y agoThe JVM wasn't originally createf for other languages as well. I agree it would be great if a vm such LLVM was builtin on all browsers. It is not, as specs that move the a better web development environment are not as aggressive as one would like, both in design and (even more prominently) in implementation. The thought that developers should wait for browsers to catch up with their needs is what leads to such situation. But, if the JVM finally decided to host other languages, after they got a lot of attention, maybe so will browsers. But we need to justify it first. Not wait.