JSX - a faster, safer, easier alternative to JavaScript • Hacker News Board

Re: JSX - a faster, safer, easier alternative to JavaScript

#41

Post by ZenPsycho » Thu, May 31, 2012, 2:25 AM UTC

deafbybeheading wrote: post #38

zenocon wrote: post #35

Looks like ActionScript, which is already based off ECMAScript...why not just use that, or extend what's already there? Getting adoption for a brand new language is tough, plus there's already a ton of software/libraries/tools written in As3

ActionScript running directly in the browser could be interesting. It has some cruft (much of it shared with JS due to the ECMAScript heritage), and the ECMAScript lineage leads to some weird features (e.g., typically its class-based inheritance is used, but it does include prototype inheritance), but it's not a bad language.

That's what Ecmascript 4 was.

Re: JSX - a faster, safer, easier alternative to JavaScript

#42

Post by ZenPsycho » Thu, May 31, 2012, 2:28 AM UTC

ZenPsycho wrote: post #33

ZenPsycho wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Gameboy color hardware can be simulated on a desktop computer in a browser, in javascript. Does that make desktop computers more primitive than Gameboys?

@viraptor and so we can see that we must take into account more than just whether one can be simulated on another, we must take into account /expressiveness/, or level of complexity as well! In theory, you could simulate prototypes with classes too. You have to be able to, or else it wouldn't be possible to write an interpreter for a language which supports prototypes. The question of "can" and "can't" then, in the c…

@viraptor (i can't reply directly to messages sometimes for some reason. is it a karma thing?) , So, what you are saying is that if you want to simulate A in B, but B needs an abstraction layer to simulate A, while A can simulate B more directly and naturally, that makes A more primative? So then does that mean that C is more Primitive than Assembler?

Re: JSX - a faster, safer, easier alternative to JavaScript

#43

Post by Danieru » Thu, May 31, 2012, 2:29 AM UTC

RandallBrown wrote: post #34

berdon wrote: post #6

function foo(bar : string) : string... Why, why do we need unnecessary tokens?! Get rid of the stupid :'s.

I agree We should also take periods out of sentences They aren't needed as long as you capitalize the first letter of every sentence This makes things much cleaner

Odd, I had no problem reading your comment. It also has an unusual clean-ness.

Maybe period-less sentences are the future Throughout history english has already had many typological changes From a DRY stand-point capitalization and periods contain the same information payload Eliminating one of them would thus be good software engineering Right?

Re: JSX - a faster, safer, easier alternative to JavaScript

#44

Post by tolmasky » Thu, May 31, 2012, 2:32 AM UTC

HoLyVieR wrote: post #31

> JSX performs optimization while compiling the source code to JavaScript. The generated code runs faster than an equivalent code written directly in JavaScript. This is just absurd. It is claiming it will run faster than JavaScript ... by compiling to JavaScript. If generated JavaScript code would run faster, it just mean the JavaScript code could have been written better in the first place. They probably have logic…

CoffeeScript makes the exact same claim, right on their front page (emphasis mine):

"The compiled output is readable and pretty-printed, passes through JavaScript Lint without warnings, will work in every JavaScript runtime, and tends to run as fast or faster than the equivalent handwritten JavaScript."

This is not absurd at all, it has been a proposition made by many languages in the past regarding their target. In fact it's kind of the whole point of an optimizing compiler. Whether its C being turned into better ASM than you'd write by hand, or CoffeeScript being turned into better JavaScript than you'd write by hand, the basic idea is the same. Of course you could theoretically just write the better ASM/JavaScript/whatever yourself, but the point is that usually how to do so is not obvious or not worth your time. If the average programmer's output ends up more performant with your compiler, then the claim is fair.

Re: JSX - a faster, safer, easier alternative to JavaScript

#45

Post by olalonde » Thu, May 31, 2012, 2:33 AM UTC

ZenPsycho wrote: post #33

ZenPsycho wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Gameboy color hardware can be simulated on a desktop computer in a browser, in javascript. Does that make desktop computers more primitive than Gameboys?

@viraptor and so we can see that we must take into account more than just whether one can be simulated on another, we must take into account /expressiveness/, or level of complexity as well! In theory, you could simulate prototypes with classes too. You have to be able to, or else it wouldn't be possible to write an interpreter for a language which supports prototypes. The question of "can" and "can't" then, in the c…

It seems you are confusing a number of things. I suggest you read this Wikipedia article, it should answer most of your questions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_programming_language

Re: JSX - a faster, safer, easier alternative to JavaScript

#46

Post by ZenPsycho » Thu, May 31, 2012, 2:39 AM UTC

ZenPsycho wrote: post #33

ZenPsycho wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Gameboy color hardware can be simulated on a desktop computer in a browser, in javascript. Does that make desktop computers more primitive than Gameboys?

@viraptor and so we can see that we must take into account more than just whether one can be simulated on another, we must take into account /expressiveness/, or level of complexity as well! In theory, you could simulate prototypes with classes too. You have to be able to, or else it wouldn't be possible to write an interpreter for a language which supports prototypes. The question of "can" and "can't" then, in the c…

@olalonde that's a bit of a cop out, of course I've read that article. That is why I'm baffled by the assertion that prototypes are more primitive than classes. It doesn't add up with the definitions of what amounts to being high level and low level. If you have something more specific to say I suggest you say it, but it's pretty lame to just wave your hands at a wikipedia article and tell me to figure out something that you've obviously got wrong, from my point of view.

Re: JSX - a faster, safer, easier alternative to JavaScript

#47

Post by sophacles » Thu, May 31, 2012, 2:45 AM UTC

ZenPsycho wrote: post #5

politician wrote: post #2

"JSX offers a solid class system much like the Java programming language, freeing the developers from working with the too-primitive prototype-based inheritance system provided by JavaScript." Pass.

That's a weird thing to think. If you can simulate classes with prototypes, but you can't simulate prototypes with classes, what is the natural conclusion you can come to about which is more expressive or primitive?

Here is an example of doing prototypes with classes in python: http://kashif.razzaqui.com/30414548

I presume similar is available in just about any language with decent reflection and/or generics.

Re: JSX - a faster, safer, easier alternative to JavaScript

#48

Post by olalonde » Thu, May 31, 2012, 2:49 AM UTC

ZenPsycho wrote: post #46

ZenPsycho wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@viraptor and so we can see that we must take into account more than just whether one can be simulated on another, we must take into account /expressiveness/, or level of complexity as well! In theory, you could simulate prototypes with classes too. You have to be able to, or else it wouldn't be possible to write an interpreter for a language which supports prototypes. The question of "can" and "can't" then, in the c…

@olalonde that's a bit of a cop out, of course I've read that article. That is why I'm baffled by the assertion that prototypes are more primitive than classes. It doesn't add up with the definitions of what amounts to being high level and low level. If you have something more specific to say I suggest you say it, but it's pretty lame to just wave your hands at a wikipedia article and tell me to figure out something…

Prototypes are a primitive data type of Javascript (a basic building block). Classes are not offered natively and have to be constructed with lower level building blocks such as prototypes. This is why classes are said to be higher level than prototypes in Javascript. Does that help?

Re: JSX - a faster, safer, easier alternative to JavaScript

#49

Post by ehsanu1 » Thu, May 31, 2012, 2:52 AM UTC

Danieru wrote: post #43

RandallBrown wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree We should also take periods out of sentences They aren't needed as long as you capitalize the first letter of every sentence This makes things much cleaner

Odd, I had no problem reading your comment. It also has an unusual clean-ness. Maybe period-less sentences are the future Throughout history english has already had many typological changes From a DRY stand-point capitalization and periods contain the same information payload Eliminating one of them would thus be good software engineering Right?

I didn't notice there were no periods till I finished reading and then had a "hey, wait a second" glance back This is an experiment worth trying out: just write everything in this style for a while

The main problem I see here is figuring out whether a new sentence has been started when a Proper Noun or capitalized pronoun like "I" has been introduced I provide the current sentence as an example of that It's not so hard to figure out from context usually, but I'm sure there are easily constructed cases where the meaning changes based on the period Then again, much of the English language is like that

Re: JSX - a faster, safer, easier alternative to JavaScript

#50

Post by politician » Thu, May 31, 2012, 2:57 AM UTC

ZenPsycho wrote: post #42

ZenPsycho wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@viraptor and so we can see that we must take into account more than just whether one can be simulated on another, we must take into account /expressiveness/, or level of complexity as well! In theory, you could simulate prototypes with classes too. You have to be able to, or else it wouldn't be possible to write an interpreter for a language which supports prototypes. The question of "can" and "can't" then, in the c…

@viraptor (i can't reply directly to messages sometimes for some reason. is it a karma thing?) , So, what you are saying is that if you want to simulate A in B, but B needs an abstraction layer to simulate A, while A can simulate B more directly and naturally, that makes A more primative? So then does that mean that C is more Primitive than Assembler?

Could you use the reply button when replying instead of using the @name notation? It's kind of hard to follow your responses.