4 ms·
If I'm understanding things correctly, the JS produced is a subset of ES3. The use of typed arrays simply give supporting platforms an additional speed boost.
by ux-app 14y ago
If I'm understanding things correctly, the JS produced is a subset of ES3. The use of typed arrays simply give supporting platforms an additional speed boost.
According to Brendan Eich: "all of JS (ES3) is 'universally supported' [by asmjs]"
- surrealize 14y agoI'm reading Eich's tweet differently. Here's the twitter exchange: https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/302897797827530752 https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/302897797827530752 ===== Alias Cummins @no_other_alias @BrendanEich So would I be right in thinking that the point of asm.js is to tie together all the universally supported bits of JS? BrendanEich @BrendanEich @no_other_alias No, all of JS (ES3) is "universally supported". http://asmjs.org/ http://asmjs.org/ is a no-GC-pause well-typed compiler target language. ===== @no_other_alias is asking if asm.js is about formalizing a JS subset that's universally supported (in all browsers). Eich says no, all of JS (ES3) is universally supported (so no subsetting is required for cross-browser compabitility). Asm.js is about formalizing a JS subset that can be compiled to much faster machine code. So I don't think Eich is making a claim about asm.js backward-compatibility here.