31–40 of 81 posts
Thanks Erik! I haven't touched Script# due to the fact that development stalled and it (was) closed source. Looking forward to seeing how this performs.
Thanks Erik! I haven't touched Script# due to the fact that development stalled and it (was) closed source. Looking forward to seeing how this performs.
Script# is alive and well AFAIK. It is hosted on github, with about 9 commits from the primary author in the last week. https://github.com/nikhilk/scriptsharp/commits/master
I don't really get this. Surely JavaScript and C# are so hugely different that any converted code would be horrific? Wouldn't it be simpler to just write JavaScript in JavaScript?
- It might be simpler to write JS, but I can imagine people wanting to see if type-safety has benefits.
I don't really get this. Surely JavaScript and C# are so hugely different that any converted code would be horrific? Wouldn't it be simpler to just write JavaScript in JavaScript?
- Translating a statically-typed Object Oriented language to JS wouldn't produce hugely different (/horrific) code. From inheritance to lambdas, there are comparable features available in JS. Going from JS to C# might be harder though. - It might be simpler to write JS, but I can imagine people wanting to see if type-safety has benefits.
I totally agree that JavaScript can easily end up being a huge mess especially when project grows. Using more strict language like C# can help on that. I have to try this, good job!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"... but when it is JavaScript that will be run by the browser then JavaScript is what you should be writing." So by that logic, one shouldn't be writing C# that targets the CLR either, but should rather be coding in MSIL directly. Mmm, no thanks!
But JavaScript is not (another daft meme) "the assembler of the web" as it is itself interpreted (or what have you) into byte code for execution. The point is that one should limit the level of abstraction to one which sits in that comfort zone between code that is sensible to humans and code that is sensible to the machine running it and (perhaps more importantly) the available dev/debug tools.
I don't agree that limitations should be placed on abstractions; I have no clue what's happening at the CPU level when a line of JavaScript or MSIL or bla bla executes. I don't need to know what's happening at all the layers of abstraction beneath the one I'm working on, and that helps me be productive.
There might be a pragmatic argument against using compile-to-JS languages _right now_, but with things like Google Chrome's Source Maps, this is a problem that is being solved if it hasn't been already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"... but when it is JavaScript that will be run by the browser then JavaScript is what you should be writing." So by that logic, one shouldn't be writing C# that targets the CLR either, but should rather be coding in MSIL directly. Mmm, no thanks!
But JavaScript is not (another daft meme) "the assembler of the web" as it is itself interpreted (or what have you) into byte code for execution. The point is that one should limit the level of abstraction to one which sits in that comfort zone between code that is sensible to humans and code that is sensible to the machine running it and (perhaps more importantly) the available dev/debug tools.
In short, you can't instantly rule out this compiler without knowing exactly what you'd want to do with it. And exactly how good it would be at that specific problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
- Translating a statically-typed Object Oriented language to JS wouldn't produce hugely different (/horrific) code. From inheritance to lambdas, there are comparable features available in JS. Going from JS to C# might be harder though. - It might be simpler to write JS, but I can imagine people wanting to see if type-safety has benefits.
That's right, it doesn't get horrific until you use goto or yield (which don't exist in Javascript so they have to be emulated).
Curious to see how you managed the emulation - splitting up a function? Web workers? :)