Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fabrice Bellard Releases MicroQuickJS

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 594 posts

Re: Fabrice Bellard Releases MicroQuickJS

#461

Post by RHSeeger »

somat wrote: post #363
fc417fc802 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why? Your window width will presumably be tailored to accommodate common scenarios in your preferred tab width. More than that, in the general case for common C like languages things should almost never be nested more than a few levels deep. That's usually a sign of poorly designed and difficult to maintain code. Lisps are a notable exception here, but due to limitations (arguably poor design) with how th…

I find it tends to be a structural thing, Tabs for indenting are fine, hell I prefer tabs for indenting. But use tabs for spacing and columnar layout and the format tends to break on tab width changes. Honestly not a huge deal but as such I tend to avoid tabs for layout work.

I love the idea of "tabs for indents, spaces for alignment", but I don't even bring it up anymore because it (the combination of the two) sets so many people off. I also like the idea of elastic tabs, but that requires editor buy-in.

All that being said, I've very much a "as long as everyone working on the code does it the same, I'll be fine" sort of person. We use spaces for everything, with defined indent levels, where I am, and it works just fine.

Re: Fabrice Bellard Releases MicroQuickJS

#462

Post by keepamovin »

Fabrice, Mr Bellard, O Indefatigable One, if you are reading this, I would love for you to make a JavaScript that compiles to assembly and works across Windows PE, macOS and Linux. Surrendering the various efficiencies of the V8 JIT bytecode in favor of AOT is entirely acceptable for the concision, speed and the chance to "begin again" that this affords. In fact, I believe you may already be working on such an idea! If you are not (highly doubtful) I encourage you to ponder it, and if we are so lucky and the universe wills it, you shall turn the hand of your incomparable craftsmanship upon this worthy goal, and doubtless such a magnificent creation shall be realized by you in a surprisingly short amount of time!

Re: Fabrice Bellard Releases MicroQuickJS

#463

Post by dev_l1x_be »

DebugDruid wrote: post #303
hnlmorg wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lua only departs from norms if you’ve had a very narrow experience with other programming languages. Frankly, I welcome the fact that Redis doesn’t use JavaScript. It’s an abomination of a language. The fewer times I need to use it the better.

I think criticizing JavaScript has become a way of signaling "I'm a good programmer." Yes, good programmers ten years ago had valid reasons to criticize it. But today, attacking the efforts of skilled engineers who have improved the language (given the constraints and without breaking half of the web) seems unfair. They’ve achieved a Herculean task compared to the Python dev team, which has broken backward compatibil…

Or good programmers understand why JS is bad?

Re: Fabrice Bellard Releases MicroQuickJS

#464

Post by [deleted] »

junon wrote: post #428
silisili wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm torn on this. Initially I agreed, just because so many other languages do it that way. But if you ignore that and clean slate it, IMO, 1 based makes more sense. I feel like 0 based mainly gained foothold because of C's bastardization of arrays vs pointers and associated tricks. But most other languages don't even support that. You can only see :len(x)-1 so many times before you realize how ridiculous it is.

0 based has a LOT of benefits whereas the reasoning, if I recall, for 1-indexing in Lua was to make the language more approachable to non-devs. Having written a game in it (via LÖVE), the 1-indexing was a continued source of problems. On the other hand, I rarely need to use len-1, especially since most languages expose more readable methods such as `last()`.

[deleted]

Re: Fabrice Bellard Releases MicroQuickJS

#465

Post by wartywhoa23 »

garganzol wrote: post #451
wartywhoa23 wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm constanly encountering this "bloated ego" argument every time the narrative is being steered away to prevent monetary losses for AI companies. Especially so when it concerns AI theft of human music and visual art. "Those pompous artists, who do they think they are? We'll rob them of their egos ". The problem is that these ego-accusations don't quite come from egoless entities.

It is not about artists per ce, it is about manipulative entities. For any manipulation to succeed, one has to create a fog, disorientation, muddy waters. AI brings clarity. This results in a lot of pain for those who tried to hijack the game in one way or another. From the psychological point of view, AI is a mirror of one's personality. Depending on who you are, you see different reflections: someone sees a threat,…

AI brings clarity.

Do you mean that kind of clarity when no audio/video evidence is a proof of anything anymore?

> This results in a lot of pain for those who tried to hijack the game in one way or another.

I'm not quite sure if any artists, designers, musicians and programmers whose work was used to train AI without their consent tried to manipulate anyone or hijack anything. Care to elaborate?

Re: Fabrice Bellard Releases MicroQuickJS

#467

Post by NuclearPM »

teo_zero wrote: post #325
mananaysiempre wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re wrong in the way in which many people are wrong when they hear about a thing called “tail-call optimization ”, which is why some people have been trying to get away from the term in favour of “proper tail calls” or something similar, at least as far as R5RS[1]: > A Scheme implementation is properly tail-recursive if it supports an unbounded number of active tail calls. The issue here is that, in every language…

Thank you for the precise answer. I still think that the language property (or requirement, or behavior as seen by within the language itself) that we're talking about in this case is "unbounded nested calls" and that the language specs doesn't (shouldn't) assume that such property will be satisfied in a specific way, e.g. switching the call to a branch, as TCO usually means.

Why do you think that?

Re: Fabrice Bellard Releases MicroQuickJS

#468

Post by fud101 »

alcover wrote: post #5

I wish for this new year we reboot the Web with a super light standard and accompanying ecosystem with - A small and efficient JS subset, HTML, CSS - A family of very simple browsers that do just that - A new Web that adheres to the above That would make my year.

It needs a good standard library yeah? i don't see that in your list.

Re: Fabrice Bellard Releases MicroQuickJS

#469

Post by dotandimet »

alexdowad wrote: post #251
pizlonator wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah QuickJS is great. I bet MQJS will also be very popular. Quite impressive that bro is going to have two JS engines to brag about in addition to a lot of other very useful things!

> Quite impressive... Yes, quite! Monsieur Bellard is a legend of computer programming. It would be hard to think of another programmer whose body of public work is more impressive than FB. Unfortunate that he doesn't seem to write publicly about how he thinks about software. I've never seen him as a guest on any podcast either. I have long wondered who the "Charlie Gordon" who seems to collaborate with him on everyt…

In the QuickJS github repo there are commits from Charlie Gordon's github profile, https://github.com/chqrlie
Post reply on HN