4 ms·

>Can we please move away from JS and move to a nice IL? A thousand times this. The web is playing a bigger and bigger role in computing but IMO it's hamstrung

by jbjohns 16y ago

>Can we please move away from JS and move to a nice IL? A thousand times this. The web is playing a bigger and bigger role in computing but IMO it's hamstrung a bit by having it's "assembler" Javascript. I think a lot of developers are just going to use some other language that compiles to Javascript anyway, why not give us an "assembler" option.

xiongchiamiov 16y ago
Well, Silverlight claims to give me the ability to write client-side Ruby and Python, but the last time I tried Moonlight it consistently crashed Firefox...
- _stephan 16y ago
  Silverlight != Moonlight
rbanffy 16y ago
> I think a lot of developers are just going to use some other language that compiles to Javascript anyway That's a disgusting thought... What happens is usually developers who don't want to program in more than one language (or One True Language, as many of them may think) rely on such tools to generate an unreadable, sub-optimal and utterly messed up tangle of JavaScript code that kills a baby jesus every time it runs. And who then blame JavaScript for their problems. And downvotes anyone who disagrees with them ;-)
- dkersten 16y ago
  People using CoffeeScript aren't doing it to use a One True Language for everything. [People using node.js however.. ;-)]
- nickik 16y ago
  Thats just stupid you can make good source to source compiler that compile to better make faster code then a normal dev would do.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    Fine. Name one anything-to-JavaScript compiler that generates better, faster code than a "normal" developer would do. I assume we have different interpretations of what's normal.
    - jsvaughan 16y ago
      GWT
      - rbanffy 16y ago
        Have you ever read GWT-generated code? Have you ever debugged it?
      - jsvaughan 16y ago
        yeah and i have been working with gwt for years. faster code is not maintainable code, which is precisely why a mechanical optimizer makes sense. You wouldn't try to work directly with your minified js would you? But you do minify it, because it is a better experience for your users.
        rbanffy 16y ago
        Minifying the code does not optimize it in any way. It just makes it more compact (and less readable). I am not sure we are talking about the same thing here. What we are talking here is you inputting Java (and the most readable Java code is not that readable to begin with) into utterly unreadable JavaScript that's also less efficient than what a human experienced in JavaScript would be able to write and larger than the minified version of whatever that experienced human would be able to write.
        sedachv 16y ago
        "Minifying the code does not optimize it in any way. It just makes it more compact (and less readable)." The thing with JavaScript is that the initial time for loading and parsing a script in the browser counts as part of the performance. This is why every implementation (except for CL-JavaScript: http://svrg.net/CL-Javascript%200.10.05.html http://svrg.net/CL-Javascript%200.10.05.html) hasn't moved to compilers but JITs instead. So minifying JS does have some performance benefit in that it reduces load and parse time.
nickik 16y ago
You don't get the problem that needs solving. JS is hard to optimize so even if you compile to it from a other language you going to end slow because of the bottelnack of JS. If we had a IL that is good to optimize language that compile to we could get to much faster speeds in the browser.
- _stephan 16y ago
  I think you didn't get the point of jbjohns post. You're just restating his message (more clearly, though). Did you maybe overlook the 'hamstrung' and the 'why not give us an "assembler" option' at the end?

by jbjohns 16y ago

xiongchiamiov 16y ago

Well, Silverlight claims to give me the ability to write client-side Ruby and Python, but the last time I tried Moonlight it consistently crashed Firefox...

_stephan 16y ago
Silverlight != Moonlight

rbanffy 16y ago

> I think a lot of developers are just going to use some other language that compiles to Javascript anyway That's a disgusting thought... What happens is usually developers who don't want to program in more than one language (or One True Language, as many of them may think) rely on such tools to generate an unreadable, sub-optimal and utterly messed up tangle of JavaScript code that kills a baby jesus every time it runs. And who then blame JavaScript for their problems. And downvotes anyone who disagrees with them ;-)

dkersten 16y ago
People using CoffeeScript aren't doing it to use a One True Language for everything. [People using node.js however.. ;-)]
nickik 16y ago
Thats just stupid you can make good source to source compiler that compile to better make faster code then a normal dev would do.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Fine. Name one anything-to-JavaScript compiler that generates better, faster code than a "normal" developer would do. I assume we have different interpretations of what's normal.
  - jsvaughan 16y ago
    GWT
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      Have you ever read GWT-generated code? Have you ever debugged it?
    - jsvaughan 16y ago
      yeah and i have been working with gwt for years. faster code is not maintainable code, which is precisely why a mechanical optimizer makes sense. You wouldn't try to work directly with your minified js would you? But you do minify it, because it is a better experience for your users.
      - rbanffy 16y ago
        Minifying the code does not optimize it in any way. It just makes it more compact (and less readable). I am not sure we are talking about the same thing here. What we are talking here is you inputting Java (and the most readable Java code is not that readable to begin with) into utterly unreadable JavaScript that's also less efficient than what a human experienced in JavaScript would be able to write and larger than the minified version of whatever that experienced human would be able to write.
        sedachv 16y ago
        "Minifying the code does not optimize it in any way. It just makes it more compact (and less readable)." The thing with JavaScript is that the initial time for loading and parsing a script in the browser counts as part of the performance. This is why every implementation (except for CL-JavaScript: http://svrg.net/CL-Javascript%200.10.05.html http://svrg.net/CL-Javascript%200.10.05.html) hasn't moved to compilers but JITs instead. So minifying JS does have some performance benefit in that it reduces load and parse time.

nickik 16y ago

You don't get the problem that needs solving. JS is hard to optimize so even if you compile to it from a other language you going to end slow because of the bottelnack of JS. If we had a IL that is good to optimize language that compile to we could get to much faster speeds in the browser.

_stephan 16y ago
I think you didn't get the point of jbjohns post. You're just restating his message (more clearly, though). Did you maybe overlook the 'hamstrung' and the 'why not give us an "assembler" option' at the end?