3 ms·

> What it means is that the situation with browsers is not much different from the situation on native platforms. CPUs support one language, the browser support

> What it means is that the situation with browsers is not much different from the situation on native platforms. CPUs support one language, the browser supports one language. And yet I don't see anyone complain about CPUs only supporting one language, because you can compile anything to it. The same is true for JS, so why do people complain? Because we don't write assembly ourselves. Unless we are doing micro optimizations, we don't even have to look at it. We do however, have to look at your shitty JS. JS is not the "assembly of the web". It's a high level language. Your comparison is idiotic.

JDiculous 11y ago
If you write in Coffeescript or Clojurescript, you're not writing the "assembly" yourself. It's a perfectly valid comparison, and JS being a high-level language doesn't change anything.
TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
> Because we don't write assembly ourselves. Well, you don't write assembly because it's not pleasant to write in. JavaScript is actually quite high-level by comparison, so you can write in it, and many people do. > Unless we are doing micro optimizations, we don't even have to look at it. We do however, have to look at your shitty JS. You don't need to look at generated JS either. If the tooling sucks then you do, but that is only because we live in early days, and the tooling isn't quite there yet. > JS is not the "assembly of the web". It's a high level language. Your comparison is idiotic. It is a high-level language! But it is also a good compiler target, and contains a low-level language (asm.js) which is also a good compiler target. It's not a poor comparison.