4 ms·

List of languages that compile to JavaScript [1] [1] https://github.com/jashkenas/coffeescript/wiki/List-of-languages-that-compile-to-JS https://github.com/jas

by oska 12y ago

List of languages that compile to JavaScript [1] [1] https://github.com/jashkenas/coffeescript/wiki/List-of-languages-that-compile-to-JS https://github.com/jashkenas/coffeescript/wiki/List-of-langu...

anon1385 12y ago
None of that helps if you want to do something that is prohibited by the javascript sandbox. To pre-empt the inevitable response that everything you want to do is possible inside the javascript sandbox: for a lot of people everything they want to do is possible inside the iOS app store restrictions. That still doesn't make iOS an open platform suitable for general computing, and neither is FirefoxOS.
- icebraining 12y ago
  I don't see what that has to do with language choice.
  - anon1385 12y ago
    Criticising FirefoxOS for being 'javascript only' can mean a variety of things. It can mean the author doesn't like the javascript language and thinks they will inevitably be forced to use it at some point. Or it can mean they don't like only being able to target a very restrictive sandbox that is defined by a couple of very powerful corporations. Or both. FirefoxOS and ChromeOS are attacks on general purpose computing just as much as iOS is.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      It can mean anything you like; I just think that makes little sense. Every platform has one "base" language - even rms' laptop can only run MIPS instructions; everything else must be compiled or interpreted. FirefoxOS just uses JS as its base language.
      - aries1980 12y ago
        And it can use Asm.js to run LLVM code.
    - bobajeff 12y ago
      Not really, because your not restricted by store policies but rather the runtime and it's APIs. Your free to make a app for whatever purpose you want without worrying about whether it's fits in line with how the platform holder wants you to use it. If having restrictions on the runtime is your criteria for judging whether or not it's "general purpose" or not then every platform with a kernel fails because everything is subject to the restrictions it imposes.
    - untog 12y ago
      Or it can mean they don't like only being able to target a very restrictive sandbox that is defined by a couple of very powerful corporations. Or both. But Firefox is in control of its sandbox. It has provided a lot of native API access that other platforms don't have.
    - hammerandtongs 12y ago
      The correct test is simply whether the owner of the device has a clear path to root. Trying to divine somethings "general purpose" via just evaluating the runtime is murky and distracts from the core issue. By the root standard iOS fails completely. ChromeOS, Android and FirefoxOS all get middling grades in this.
    - anonbanker 12y ago
      I would disagree with FirefoxOS, as you can root the device it runs on without doing hardware modifications, unlike ChromeOS. That being said, consumer devices need to be able to pass a sort of "slave test"; if your device can't hook up to a printer/scanner, or other peripherals, it is a device meant to enslave you in a digital jail. Mozilla seems to be the best citizen thus far when it comes to user rights, and I wouldn't expect that stance to change much due to a different formfactor. this is still very much the same project JWZ founded.
      - icebraining 12y ago
        It should be noted that Chrome (and hence ChromeOS) has USB, Bluetooth and even serial port APIs¹ for its apps. Though you do have to include the specific device codes in the app manifest, so it's probably not very useful for general purpose devices. ¹ https://developer.chrome.com/apps/app_usb https://developer.chrome.com/apps/app_usb
        anonbanker 12y ago
        Right, and for that reason, I view ChromeOS as sort of a "House Arrest" sort of situation; still a jail (hardware bypass required to write to the drive? Wtf.), but more lenient. A kinder, gentler slavery, as George HW Bush might have said.
fijal 12y ago
This is ridiculous. I want a real language, like Python or Ruby, not something that is ESSENTIALLY JavaScript with an altered syntax and few goodies.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > I want a real language, like Python or Ruby First, by what criteria is JavaScript not "a real language" whereas Ruby and Python are "real" languages? Second, in any case, among the languages on that list that compile to JavaScript are both Ruby and Python, which I think meets any reasonable definition of a "a real language, like Python or Ruby".
  - fijal 12y ago
    JavaScript is a real language. I should make it more explicit - I want a real language that's sufficiently different than JS. Any of the list is not. If you look closely, none of the languages is actually python or ruby (or anything else that's sufficiently different), just JS with altered syntax. Getting all the semantic differences is REALLY hard and once you do it it's slow (e.g. untranslated pypy slow, ~60x slowdown), so you can't use it. My problem is not with JS per se it's with the absolute lack of choice.
    - mercer 12y ago
      What about ClojureScript? From what I gather it's quite fast and it couldn't be more different from javascript. Or even C via asm.js?
    - icebraining 12y ago
      In what way is Brython just JS with altered syntax, and not actually Python?
- anonbanker 12y ago
  2004 called. they want their opinion back.

by oska 12y ago

anon1385 12y ago

None of that helps if you want to do something that is prohibited by the javascript sandbox. To pre-empt the inevitable response that everything you want to do is possible inside the javascript sandbox: for a lot of people everything they want to do is possible inside the iOS app store restrictions. That still doesn't make iOS an open platform suitable for general computing, and neither is FirefoxOS.

icebraining 12y ago
I don't see what that has to do with language choice.
- anon1385 12y ago
  Criticising FirefoxOS for being 'javascript only' can mean a variety of things. It can mean the author doesn't like the javascript language and thinks they will inevitably be forced to use it at some point. Or it can mean they don't like only being able to target a very restrictive sandbox that is defined by a couple of very powerful corporations. Or both. FirefoxOS and ChromeOS are attacks on general purpose computing just as much as iOS is.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    It can mean anything you like; I just think that makes little sense. Every platform has one "base" language - even rms' laptop can only run MIPS instructions; everything else must be compiled or interpreted. FirefoxOS just uses JS as its base language.
    - aries1980 12y ago
      And it can use Asm.js to run LLVM code.
  - bobajeff 12y ago
    Not really, because your not restricted by store policies but rather the runtime and it's APIs. Your free to make a app for whatever purpose you want without worrying about whether it's fits in line with how the platform holder wants you to use it. If having restrictions on the runtime is your criteria for judging whether or not it's "general purpose" or not then every platform with a kernel fails because everything is subject to the restrictions it imposes.
  - untog 12y ago
    Or it can mean they don't like only being able to target a very restrictive sandbox that is defined by a couple of very powerful corporations. Or both. But Firefox is in control of its sandbox. It has provided a lot of native API access that other platforms don't have.
  - hammerandtongs 12y ago
    The correct test is simply whether the owner of the device has a clear path to root. Trying to divine somethings "general purpose" via just evaluating the runtime is murky and distracts from the core issue. By the root standard iOS fails completely. ChromeOS, Android and FirefoxOS all get middling grades in this.
  - anonbanker 12y ago
    I would disagree with FirefoxOS, as you can root the device it runs on without doing hardware modifications, unlike ChromeOS. That being said, consumer devices need to be able to pass a sort of "slave test"; if your device can't hook up to a printer/scanner, or other peripherals, it is a device meant to enslave you in a digital jail. Mozilla seems to be the best citizen thus far when it comes to user rights, and I wouldn't expect that stance to change much due to a different formfactor. this is still very much the same project JWZ founded.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      It should be noted that Chrome (and hence ChromeOS) has USB, Bluetooth and even serial port APIs¹ for its apps. Though you do have to include the specific device codes in the app manifest, so it's probably not very useful for general purpose devices. ¹ https://developer.chrome.com/apps/app_usb https://developer.chrome.com/apps/app_usb
      - anonbanker 12y ago
        Right, and for that reason, I view ChromeOS as sort of a "House Arrest" sort of situation; still a jail (hardware bypass required to write to the drive? Wtf.), but more lenient. A kinder, gentler slavery, as George HW Bush might have said.

fijal 12y ago

This is ridiculous. I want a real language, like Python or Ruby, not something that is ESSENTIALLY JavaScript with an altered syntax and few goodies.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> I want a real language, like Python or Ruby First, by what criteria is JavaScript not "a real language" whereas Ruby and Python are "real" languages? Second, in any case, among the languages on that list that compile to JavaScript are both Ruby and Python, which I think meets any reasonable definition of a "a real language, like Python or Ruby".
- fijal 12y ago
  JavaScript is a real language. I should make it more explicit - I want a real language that's sufficiently different than JS. Any of the list is not. If you look closely, none of the languages is actually python or ruby (or anything else that's sufficiently different), just JS with altered syntax. Getting all the semantic differences is REALLY hard and once you do it it's slow (e.g. untranslated pypy slow, ~60x slowdown), so you can't use it. My problem is not with JS per se it's with the absolute lack of choice.
  - mercer 12y ago
    What about ClojureScript? From what I gather it's quite fast and it couldn't be more different from javascript. Or even C via asm.js?
  - icebraining 12y ago
    In what way is Brython just JS with altered syntax, and not actually Python?
anonbanker 12y ago
2004 called. they want their opinion back.