Why don't they implement Python and Ruby on the web browsers?

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 17, 2011, 2:21 AM UTC

georgemcbay wrote: post #97

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla is not against a bytecode VM. Mozilla (and the WebKit team minus Google) is against arbitrarily adding new language VMs because they create a major compatibility burden. Remember this: 1) JavaScript is locked in. It's too entrenched, it's never going away. Let's just accept that. 2) That means that adding additional languages creates a burden. You're now supporting, at minimum 2 VMs. If you're going to suppor…

If JavaScript never goes away and no other options are built into the web browser, the web will become irrelevant within 10-15 years. No language lasts forever (especially not one that evolves as slowly as Javascript does), and tying the web to JavaScript and JavaScript only very obviously dooms the web. Not this year or three years from now, but eventually. That nobody other than Google is making long-view plans for…

Post by nupark2 » Sat, Dec 17, 2011, 2:47 AM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #112

nupark2 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A VM that provides a standardized bytecode and execution model capable of executing most modern dynamic and static turing complete languages with sufficient performance. This requires more general facilities for common functionality required; refer to tail call support, JVM's invokedynamic, etc. Or, shorthand, a general purpose browser VM. Unless, of course, you're arguing that the above is not truly possible, in whi…

I'm not saying that it is impossible as clearly there have been good efforts being made. However there is no such thing implemented.

Post by chc » Sat, Dec 17, 2011, 3:13 AM UTC

maratd wrote: post #70

chc wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This generally isn't the case with disparate languages on the JVM. Unless you have a concrete objection with a scientific basis, you're just spreading FUD, and I don't think that contributes to the conversation.

> Unless you have a concrete objection with a scientific basis I did. Please solve the problem I put forward. If you solve it, you win.

  function multiplyString(str, times) {
    while (times) {
      str += str;
      times -= 1;
    }
    return str;
  }

  log(multiplyString("Hello", 3));
  ?>

Post by cageface » Sat, Dec 17, 2011, 4:28 AM UTC

lang wrote: post #71

nupark2 wrote: post #8

The top comment states that any other options are impossible: "At this point we must concentrate on improving the language." I can't stand this willfully defeatist attitude. It's also not restricted to stack-overflow participants -- this position is pervasive at Mozilla. Why can't we have a standardized generic bytecode and VMs to run it? Why should the web be locked to a single language forever ? Can you imagine if…

I don't understand this fixation on js either. Even more, i don't understand the fixation on html, css and all so called web technologies. Common, web was never designed for the sort of applications we are trying to make it run. We need a totally new approach.

Post by bzbarsky » Sat, Dec 17, 2011, 5:08 AM UTC

zanny wrote: post #9

doublerebel wrote: post #7

The browsers themselves are already built and powered using JS. Maintaining a comprehensive API at the speed that web tech advances in more than one client-side scripting language would be hellish -- browser vendors already have enough trouble agreeing on CSS and JS standards. The Stack Overflow article already raised a number of good reasons why not. Not sure why this is garnering so much attention from HN.

Because we all hate javascript. I just wish they decoupled javascript engines and browsers, made a language agnostic api spec for the DOM, and just let html tags require a language ref and the browser would be expected to try to find a runtime on the local machine or ask the user to install it. The monopolistic nature of javascript in client web browsing is bad for innovation.