51–60 of 90 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does scala get embedded in the browser? I can't seem to find it on that document? I know you can use asm.js but it looks like they're not using asm.js
What do you mean? It gets compiled to vanilla JS. You can use sourcemaps to link to your original source file for debugging as well.
>It gets compiled to vanilla JS
thanks
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The huge difference is that Scala.js is production-ready, the other ones mentioned aren't.
By what measure is Scala.js more production ready than ghcjs?
So, in the terms of this article, Ghcjs might be around the same place Scala.js was 2 years ago. In the mean time, Scala.js has taken off in a lot of ways. It's yet to be seen what will happen with Ghcjs.
It's a little strange that ClojureScript is omitted from the sections where it compares favorably to Scala.js, e.g.: > If you look at other compile-to-JS languages like: > - Google Web Toolkit which lets you compile Java to Javascript, > - The Opal Ruby Compiler for Ruby > - Brython, PyJS, Skulpt, Transcrypt or RapydScript for Python > - Various flavors of C#-to-Javascript (Salterelle, Bridge.Net, JSIL) > - Or Haskel…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you think of Dart? I need to know this for reasons I can't go into.
Never used it but it seems like a plausible project; it has Google's infinite $$$ backing it and smart people like Gilad Bracha on the team. They've built up quite a lot (language, tools, package-manager, IDE, ...) from scratch which is pretty impressive. As a language, it seems pleasant: somewhere around C#, a mix of JS and Java, less "powerful" (or less "crazy" depending on how you look at it) than Scala. I think I…
Scala is a cool language, but I can't help feeling that Javascript has a very strong culture around it that pretty much dooms adoption of things that don't feel "Javascript-y". I think the strong commitment to being a Javascript superset is the reason Typescript is blowing up the way it is.
It's a little strange that ClojureScript is omitted from the sections where it compares favorably to Scala.js, e.g.: > If you look at other compile-to-JS languages like: > - Google Web Toolkit which lets you compile Java to Javascript, > - The Opal Ruby Compiler for Ruby > - Brython, PyJS, Skulpt, Transcrypt or RapydScript for Python > - Various flavors of C#-to-Javascript (Salterelle, Bridge.Net, JSIL) > - Or Haskel…
Except for: types. That's a big deal about what the author liked about Scala.js.
I wrote this; ask me anything
I wrote this; ask me anything
The real reason is that this 24-page heavily-researched blog post is already too damn long lol
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except for: types. That's a big deal about what the author liked about Scala.js.
It wasn't mentioned as a criterion, and OpalRuby, Python variants, and Coffeescript all got significant discussion in the article. The ClojureScript omission on all the axes other than "superficial similarity to JavaScript" is still pretty glaring.
- "Perfect IDE support" when described hinges on types
- "Static Optimizability" specifically mentions enjoying
type-driven AOT optimizations
- "Solving Real Problems" mentions types in the
"Refactoring is Painful", "'Non-trivial' abstractions",
and, briefly, in "Scala.js Solves Real Problems"
But yeah, it does feel like he didn't give ClojureScript as much examination.