4 ms·

Using the language you're comfortable with client-side. Though what this really shows, once again, is that we really need a good, open, virtual machine specific

Using the language you're comfortable with client-side. Though what this really shows, once again, is that we really need a good, open, virtual machine specification for client-side byte code so we aren't stuck with the same javascript hammer for all problems.

MatthewPhillips 14y ago
? Doesn't this show that we aren't stuck with the same hammer? Opal is a different hammer.
- rrouse 14y ago
  Not really. You're still using Javascript in the end.
  - ville 14y ago
    How is that a bad thing? Source code VMs are easier to secure and as the tooling improves, you don't need to look a the generated JS anymore to debug, it becomes "byte code".
rcthompson 14y ago
Wasn't that the original goal of Java, like, 20 years ago?
- Sanddancer 14y ago
  It was, but the big issue there was that sun decided to keep all the keys of the castle to themselves. Hence the desire for an open bytecode format.
iso8859-1 14y ago
Native Client? Or PNaCl if you insist on extreme portability.