5 ms·
Web standards apps will always have to make bad compromises. We need browser byte code.
by cincinnatus 14y ago
Web standards apps will always have to make bad compromises. We need browser byte code.
- robhawkes 14y agoWhat sort of compromises?
- cincinnatus 14y agoHaving to target JavaScript. You then have issues with debugging, overly convoluted build processes etc.
- mtrimpe 14y agoJavaScript is browser byte code. Just like Java byte code it's not that great for a lot of cases but, just like Java, eventually the JIT will get pretty decent.
- dons 14y agoOnly by accident. It has terrible semantics for a target assembly.
- adestefan 14y agoThe JIT in the JVM is not for Java, but for Java bytecode. That, along with the easy integration into existing Java classes, is what makes the JVM such an attractive target for things like Scala, Jython, and Clojure.
- mtrimpe 14y agoJava bytecode is pretty close to Java "the language." You can try decompiling some Java classes and see how close to the original you end up getting. Because of that it's also a pretty awful assembly target, something which is only now being addressed with things like invokedynamic, finally moving Java byte code beyond Java 'the language.'
- Ygg2 14y agoI don't know. No matter how often I hear/see this, I just can't plausibly believe it. I think there are a lot of things missing to make JS a plausible Javacript. For this reason I kinda want Dart to succeed. Why not make the browser truly polyglot if we are trying replace OS with browsers?
- mtrimpe 14y agoJavaScript _is_ browser byte code.