61–70 of 70 posts
All it is is a javascript like language with classes, interfaces, optional types, and some extra built in data structures. A new runtime, biggest obstacle being adoption, just for that seems a bit much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crashing Safari on OS X, too. Or rather, the tab hangs. It produces an "TypeError: 'undefined' is not an object (evaluating 'a[Ra]')" and "TypeError: 'undefined' is not an object (evaluating 'b.count')". The console was a bit hard to get to with webkit2 taking up 100% of a cpu and all that.
Safari 5.1 on Snow Leopard. No crashes. Works without any issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Safari 5.1 on Snow Leopard. No crashes. Works without any issues.
It appears they fixed it... sort of. The box with the highlighted code is no longer on the page, and now it works in Safari.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The point is ... that an IL is something that all the browser makers could get behind. Sure, but that's not going to happen in the next decade unless that IL is in Javascript.
If they built an IL that can also be implemented in Javascript they might have a chance. e.g: Javascript → IL → Javascript
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The web needs a standard Intermediate Language: a machine code. Definitely. > This is what Javascript is becoming and it isn't well designed for it. Maybe... but what does a bytecode layer provide? I wonder if something useful couldn't be written in JS that provides a thin service layer. I agree it's not ideal, but it's what we've got. Google already have a few to-javascript compilers, including one for Dart... I e…
The point is not that they are already all over this but rather that an IL is something that all the browser makers could get behind. If Javascript is good enough as an IL why does Dart bypass it in Chrome?
Because they decided that it was easier to make up a new language than improve the V8 implementation of ECMAScript, as far as I can tell.
And at least locally, for Google, that may be true. Whether it's true for the web as a whole is unclear.
Other ECMAScript implementors seem to think that V8 is not nearly as fast as an ES implementation could be and are working on proving their claims with actual running code...
Did I miss the part where it says this will be an open standard? This looks like embrace and extended but I hope I am wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It appears they fixed it... sort of. The box with the highlighted code is no longer on the page, and now it works in Safari.
What box of highlighted code? The samples box with the run button?
While Google may need this for building large applications, this is something that the web could do without. The web needs a standard Intermediate Language: a machine code. This is what Javascript is becoming and it isn't well designed for it.
The web needs a standard API for displaying content. 95% of the client-side headaches out there are due to browser DOM rendering and event model quirks and incompatibilities.
Did I miss the part where it says this will be an open standard? This looks like embrace and extended but I hope I am wrong.
