41–50 of 55 posts
For folks that are curious, we wanted to get these changes out the door -- strict mode syntax errors being a big one -- so that source maps can be the focus of the next release (probably 1.4.0).
For folks that are curious, we wanted to get these changes out the door -- strict mode syntax errors being a big one -- so that source maps can be the focus of the next release (probably 1.4.0).
>But why is this REALLY COOL? Because I can potentially debug any language in the browser as long as it has a source map.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I already know JavaScript, and prefer CoffeeScript. But thanks for sharing your irrelevant opinion, and enjoy your false sense of superiority.
I can see that the parent comment was being a bit of a jerk, but why are all the comments in response (such as this one) being even worse? You could actually say something constructive in response instead of just resorting to personal attacks...
Every time CoffeeScript is mentioned, there's always at least one comment like this. It's either trolling or people being closed-minded, but either way there's no sense in trying to have an actual discussion with someone who opens the conversation in this way.
If anyone would like to have a real debate on the merits of CoffeeScript, I'd love to participate, but the reality is it's largely a matter of taste.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding source maps... it feels like the solution to the wrong problem. Why are we still pushing minified/obfuscated Javascript to the browser anyway? What's wrong with standardizing on a bytecode format instead (e.g. JVM)?
I'll never understand the bytecode zealots and their insistence that browser makers scrap the years of JavaScript optimization they've done and start from scratch on some new format that will likely take another 10 or 15 years to get right. You have what you want. You don't have to right in JavaScript any more. There are dozens of alternatives, and there are only going to be more. Source maps means you'll never even…
Source-to-source-translation _always_ sucked and that's known for a few decades already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding source maps... it feels like the solution to the wrong problem. Why are we still pushing minified/obfuscated Javascript to the browser anyway? What's wrong with standardizing on a bytecode format instead (e.g. JVM)?
That's a bit like asking why I work out instead of snapping my fingers and turning into a Greek demigod. One is clearly preferable on its own merits — but it's just not going to happen any time soon. Source maps are relatively easy: There's a public standard, a couple of browser makers have agreed to it, and it doesn't need universal acceptance since it's only for development. Basically, it doesn't require a lot of c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll never understand the bytecode zealots and their insistence that browser makers scrap the years of JavaScript optimization they've done and start from scratch on some new format that will likely take another 10 or 15 years to get right. You have what you want. You don't have to right in JavaScript any more. There are dozens of alternatives, and there are only going to be more. Source maps means you'll never even…
Why should that "scrap years of JavaScript optimization"? That doesn't make sense. (Completely ignoring the fact, that JavaScript is not fast and will never be.) Source-to-source-translation _always_ sucked and that's known for a few decades already.
The bytecode that browsers compile JavaScript to are incompatible with each other. They would either have to pick one (wouldn't happen) or design one together (wouldn't happen).
A designed by committee bytecode would also effectively eliminate browser vendors' ability to compete on speed.
> Source-to-source-translation _always_ sucked and that's known for a few decades already.
In what way? From what I read Gambit Scheme compiles to C that is as fast as hand-crafted C. I would assume that CoffeeScript is no slower than regular old JavaScript. So if not speed, how are these things sucking?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should that "scrap years of JavaScript optimization"? That doesn't make sense. (Completely ignoring the fact, that JavaScript is not fast and will never be.) Source-to-source-translation _always_ sucked and that's known for a few decades already.
> Why should that "scrap years of JavaScript optimization"? That doesn't make sense. The bytecode that browsers compile JavaScript to are incompatible with each other. They would either have to pick one (wouldn't happen) or design one together (wouldn't happen). A designed by committee bytecode would also effectively eliminate browser vendors' ability to compete on speed. > Source-to-source-translation _always_ sucke…
For folks that are curious, we wanted to get these changes out the door -- strict mode syntax errors being a big one -- so that source maps can be the focus of the next release (probably 1.4.0).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a bit like asking why I work out instead of snapping my fingers and turning into a Greek demigod. One is clearly preferable on its own merits — but it's just not going to happen any time soon. Source maps are relatively easy: There's a public standard, a couple of browser makers have agreed to it, and it doesn't need universal acceptance since it's only for development. Basically, it doesn't require a lot of c…
With a common bytecode there would probably be a chance for languages to be fast and not stuck with translations to JavaScript for the next decade.
At any rate, any bytecode the JavaScript VM people agreed to would almost certainly correspond very closely to JavaScript, so it's not clear that a standard bytecode would make alternative languages much faster. On top of that, the optimizers in current JavaScript implementations are highly tuned for JavaScript, so a bytecode-compiled program running on V8 might actually be slower than the JavaScript we have today.
Basically, without an implementation, this all sounds like pie-in-the-sky talk to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding source maps... it feels like the solution to the wrong problem. Why are we still pushing minified/obfuscated Javascript to the browser anyway? What's wrong with standardizing on a bytecode format instead (e.g. JVM)?
This is in the works already with Google's PNaCl. I believe the bytecode format is based on LLVM IR.