3 ms·
I'd also be interested in knowing. AFAIK, things like coffeescript compile to readable, plain JS. Can a relatively efficient system be made which interprets som
by stevecooperorg 16y ago
I'd also be interested in knowing. AFAIK, things like coffeescript compile to readable, plain JS. Can a relatively efficient system be made which interprets something more 'bytecodey' than readable JS;
eg,
interpret(['.maxstack 8', 'ldstr "Hello World!"', 'call void window.alert', 'ret']);
- nathanwdavis 16y agoThis is what I've been thinking about too. If javascript like what you wrote above were much faster than nicely structured, readable javascript, then perhaps the idea of "Javascript is the bytecode" may not be such a bad one. <br /> I'm just not sure that it would really provide the performance improvement we would hope for.
- stevecooperorg 16y agoIt would almost certainly be a good deal slower. Or at least, it would be if I wrote it. I know cappucino (http://cappuccino.org/ http://cappuccino.org/) works with a JavaScript language interepreter, so there are mature products out there heading along these lines.