4 ms·
Why should that "scrap years of JavaScript optimization"? That doesn't make sense. (Completely ignoring the fact, that JavaScript is not fast and will never be.
by soc88 15y ago
Why should that "scrap years of JavaScript optimization"? That doesn't make sense. (Completely ignoring the fact, that JavaScript is not fast and will never be.)
Source-to-source-translation _always_ sucked and that's known for a few decades already.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago> Why should that "scrap years of JavaScript optimization"? That doesn't make sense. The bytecode that browsers compile JavaScript to are incompatible with each other. They would either have to pick one (wouldn't happen) or design one together (wouldn't happen). A designed by committee bytecode would also effectively eliminate browser vendors' ability to compete on speed. > Source-to-source-translation _always_ sucked and that's known for a few decades already. In what way? From what I read Gambit Scheme compiles to C that is as fast as hand-crafted C. I would assume that CoffeeScript is no slower than regular old JavaScript. So if not speed, how are these things sucking?
- lucian1900 15y agoFurthermore, some engines don't even have bytecode or even an interpreter and directly generate machine code (V8).