4 ms·

We really need a monkey version of nodejs and node-webkit. Mozilla's engine looks more solid for universal use, there are more interesting features and experim

by ii 13y ago

We really need a monkey version of nodejs and node-webkit. Mozilla's engine looks more solid for universal use, there are more interesting features and experimentation. The only problem is that it's harder to embed in another software, but it looks that it is changing and I really hope it will change.

camus2 13y ago
> Mozilla's engine looks more solid for universal use > The only problem is that it's harder to embed in another software Well , you cant have it both ways. There was spideymonkey-node a few years ago , but Mozilla doesnt seem interested in maintaining that. In fact there are quite a few mozilla abandonned projects,(XULRunner...) that could have competed with node-webkit.
- BrendanEich 13y ago
  You are thinking of SpiderNode, and/or NodeMonkey. Other than the principals leaving Mozilla for Facebook, this work was superseded by Tim Caswell's Luvmonkey: https://github.com/creationix/luvmonkey https://github.com/creationix/luvmonkey Turns out Node is really well factored, so emulating the V8 API on top of SpiderMonkey, especially back in 2011 as the Spider-Node-Monkey project tried, is harder. It's the "long way 'round". Binding libuv to any engine that implements ES5+ is easier and gives Node interop. As for XULRunner, sorry -- no leverage. If you see some, make it a business and show us up.
  - oscargrouch 13y ago
    >Turns out Node is really well factored, so emulating the V8 API on top of SpiderMonkey, especially back in 2011 as the Spider-Node-Monkey project tried, is harder. It's the "long way 'round". Also: (i know i will get downvoted for saying that) but nodejs code is poorly written[0].. leaking v8 internals all over the place.. so to plug another js engine backend into it would be a very good exercise in tour-de-force [0] - In a enginnering perspective, not pragmatic : cause nodejs does whats supposed to pretty well :)
  - ii 13y ago
    All that is needed is a standalone "interpreter" with a REPL that can do some basic OS tasks and a pretty good way of starting simple web servers. Yes, small web services that can interop with larger systems, nothing more.
- kevingadd 13y ago
  You say 'could have competed with node-webkit' despite the fact that XULRunner existed for many years, was used to ship commercial products, and still withered on the vine because nobody gave a shit about it. It's not a product anyone wants. node-webkit will likely get left by the wayside in the same fashion once people realize the issues with building graphical desktop applications on top of a browser.

by ii 13y ago

camus2 13y ago

> Mozilla's engine looks more solid for universal use > The only problem is that it's harder to embed in another software Well , you cant have it both ways. There was spideymonkey-node a few years ago , but Mozilla doesnt seem interested in maintaining that. In fact there are quite a few mozilla abandonned projects,(XULRunner...) that could have competed with node-webkit.

BrendanEich 13y ago
You are thinking of SpiderNode, and/or NodeMonkey. Other than the principals leaving Mozilla for Facebook, this work was superseded by Tim Caswell's Luvmonkey: https://github.com/creationix/luvmonkey https://github.com/creationix/luvmonkey Turns out Node is really well factored, so emulating the V8 API on top of SpiderMonkey, especially back in 2011 as the Spider-Node-Monkey project tried, is harder. It's the "long way 'round". Binding libuv to any engine that implements ES5+ is easier and gives Node interop. As for XULRunner, sorry -- no leverage. If you see some, make it a business and show us up.
- oscargrouch 13y ago
  >Turns out Node is really well factored, so emulating the V8 API on top of SpiderMonkey, especially back in 2011 as the Spider-Node-Monkey project tried, is harder. It's the "long way 'round". Also: (i know i will get downvoted for saying that) but nodejs code is poorly written[0].. leaking v8 internals all over the place.. so to plug another js engine backend into it would be a very good exercise in tour-de-force [0] - In a enginnering perspective, not pragmatic : cause nodejs does whats supposed to pretty well :)
- ii 13y ago
  All that is needed is a standalone "interpreter" with a REPL that can do some basic OS tasks and a pretty good way of starting simple web servers. Yes, small web services that can interop with larger systems, nothing more.
kevingadd 13y ago
You say 'could have competed with node-webkit' despite the fact that XULRunner existed for many years, was used to ship commercial products, and still withered on the vine because nobody gave a shit about it. It's not a product anyone wants. node-webkit will likely get left by the wayside in the same fashion once people realize the issues with building graphical desktop applications on top of a browser.