3 ms·

So is asm.js not run from a binary, that compiles the js JIT? C JIT compilers compile C code JIT, I still don't see the difference. The two projects I linked t

So is asm.js not run from a binary, that compiles the js JIT? C JIT compilers compile C code JIT, I still don't see the difference. The two projects I linked to were incorrect, they are for interpreting asm JIT. What I meant to point to were: http://root.cern.ch/drupal/content/cling http://root.cern.ch/drupal/content/cling https://metacpan.org/pod/C::TinyCompiler https://metacpan.org/pod/C::TinyCompiler

pacala 13y ago
Thanks for the pointers. Looks like asm.js and C are on par as portable assembly targets. The one difference is that asm.js is ready to use by half a billion users, the other is that no sane human should code asm.js directly, whereas some people swear by C as a language for humans. Allow me to clarify the initial statement: > For 99.9% of the end users, asm.js it's even closer to "portable native code" than C, as C is usually delivered to end users as a precompiled binary via a separate compilation step, therefore no longer portable.
- eliasmacpherson 13y ago
  The reason people call C portable assembly is because it's about as low as you can go without coding in assembly, and still have it compile to various platforms. You are really comparing asm.js and C as portable assembly emitters rather than targets. That said, people very occasionally use C as a target like they use asm.js, e.g. the original C++ compilers, the mars rover. asm.js is as low as you can seemingly go and have it run in a modern version of Chrome and Firefox, but those requirements prevent it from being a portable assembler in the sense that C is. In addition, it's sensible to write your program in another language first before asm.js, as I understand it. There's a whole swathe of machines (rather than users) out there that cannot run a modern version of those browsers, i.e. asm.js is not portable to them. When the code being written in and transposed from is asm.js and the destination is some other language - then asm.js will be portable assembler in the sense that C is.

pacala 13y ago

Thanks for the pointers. Looks like asm.js and C are on par as portable assembly targets. The one difference is that asm.js is ready to use by half a billion users, the other is that no sane human should code asm.js directly, whereas some people swear by C as a language for humans. Allow me to clarify the initial statement: > For 99.9% of the end users, asm.js it's even closer to "portable native code" than C, as C is usually delivered to end users as a precompiled binary via a separate compilation step, therefore no longer portable.

eliasmacpherson 13y ago
The reason people call C portable assembly is because it's about as low as you can go without coding in assembly, and still have it compile to various platforms. You are really comparing asm.js and C as portable assembly emitters rather than targets. That said, people very occasionally use C as a target like they use asm.js, e.g. the original C++ compilers, the mars rover. asm.js is as low as you can seemingly go and have it run in a modern version of Chrome and Firefox, but those requirements prevent it from being a portable assembler in the sense that C is. In addition, it's sensible to write your program in another language first before asm.js, as I understand it. There's a whole swathe of machines (rather than users) out there that cannot run a modern version of those browsers, i.e. asm.js is not portable to them. When the code being written in and transposed from is asm.js and the destination is some other language - then asm.js will be portable assembler in the sense that C is.