Originally posted by caligula
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
SIMD JavaScript Support Added To Firefox, Under Review For Chrome
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by nej_simon View PostWell, do that then and maybe it will take off the same way as javascript based web apps have. Until then the rest of us can enjoy writing and using faster javascript. Seriously, what's your problem?
But you want to know what my problem is? My problem is people who treat the Web Browser as it's own OS and think that everything should be run on it, and completely ignore that it's a Trifecta of crappy loose standards, because Cloud Computing is the Hip new fad of the day. But guess what? Not only is this resulting in even more incompatibility issues than the ie6 days (even major sites like Youtube have serious issues, for instance playlists will more often than not break to where it will "switch" to the next video but the video it's playing won't have actually changed, and this wasn't a problem before the last half-year or so) but web browsers quite frankly can't handle this, and if you take a look at what they're having to deal with it's very obvious as to why. They have to deal with so much crap data that it's ridiculous. I get serious slowdown issues with firefox if I have it open for more than a few hours regardless of things like how many tabs I have open in it just because the modern web is that nasty to browsers. This didn't happen 4-5 years ago before this whole fad
Originally posted by nej_simon View PostThey saw the problem and tried to enforce a strict standard with XHTML, in which parsing would be aborted on errors. And the tag is called <img> btw.
And yeah I saw the typo there, but 5 minute edit limits... and being used to intellisense a pedantic typist does not make (but it's okay because my IDE will do what's needed for me :P).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View PostOh yes because web browsers aren't binaries, clearly... Obviously I don't need anything at all to run the javascript. Nope.
Fact: It's an interepreted language and as a result you need a binary, the interpreter, and JS needs it just as much as any other interpreted language so you get no points.
Works out of the box.... no... you still need a web browser or something else to interpret the JS code for you, just like anything else. Furthermore on almost every linux system BASH works "out of the box", but does that mean that I should be writing everything in BASH? Hell no.
Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View PostFurthermore just what systems are there that I should care about that somehow manage to run a web browser binary in order to be able to run JS but that can't run a program that was written in any common language (C, C++, Python, etc..)?
Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View PostYou know the .NET and JVM Managed Language guys claimed the same thing... guess what hasn't happened? Because here's the problem, as people find new and better ways to to make compilers optimize code the ideas get shared around and everyone implements them. Now the .NET and JVM guys could actually have an argument here because of a trick called Profile Guided Optimizations which they could continuously do, as long as the bytecode is cached.
Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View PostWell JSON is nice yes, however it's YAML with brackets... JS itself though.. yuck
If you like a static language, you can write in C++, use your static tooling, etc., and then compile it to JavaScript.
Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View PostSurely you must be joking. Flash maybe since they're closish in terms of language and mozilla has decided to start on one (although in all likelihood it'll only get as far as Gnash, which is to say not far enough), Java and Silverlight though... hell no... not happening and you're completely daft if you think anyone but the most insane person is going to spend that kind of effort on a project like that. And if that person does the rest of the programming world will be looking at them with a cocked eye going WTF?
Silverlight and Java aren't important (how many websites use Silverlight or Java?)
Comment
-
Originally posted by abral View PostBasically everyone has a web browser, so you don't need to worry about distributing it. Instead with Java, Python, etc., you don't know if users have the JVM, a Python interpreter, etc..
In short you're making up problems that don't really exist.
Originally posted by abral View PostWith JavaScript you just need a browser, that is guaranteed to be installed on the user machine. With C/C++ you need to compile your program for every platform. With Python, well, there are problem with distributing it on Windows, for example, where you need to ship the interpreter too (not so many people have a Python interpreter installed on Windows). With Java you need the JVM, that a lot of users don't have.
Alternatively as stated for a third time now: I could use LLVM to JIT compile C++
Originally posted by abral View PostJavaScript is optimized a lot, because there's a lot of competition around JavaScript performance. Yes, ideas spread and the .net and java virtual machines may be as fast as or faster than JavaScript, but who cares? You don't need the fastest, you just need one that is fast enough for your needs.
4) thanks to good compiler optimizations it will be soon "faster than native"
Originally posted by abral View PostJavaScript can also be a compilation target (I think this is what he meant with his post). You can write a C++ program and compile it to JavaScript, or you can translate Java into JavaScript.
If you like a static language, you can write in C++, use your static tooling, etc., and then compile it to JavaScript.
Originally posted by abral View PostShumway is already much better than Gnash.
Silverlight and Java aren't important (how many websites use Silverlight or Java?)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Marc Driftmeyer View PostSONY /s
Comment
-
I just want to hop in and say I kinda agree with Luke_Wolf on this argument.
There are things JavaScript should be used for (interactive web pages, simple-and-stupid web games, etc) and things it really, really shouldn't be used for. Unfortunately, the die-hard JavaScript fans don't realize this, and think it can and should be use for _everything_. Hell, I saw a guy switch from cmake to node.js (writing the script himself), breaking all ARM compatibility along with introducing a ton of issues that weren't there previously. All because he "likes node.js" >_>
Comment
-
Dynamically typed variables is one of the worst ideas in programming. I have only had to experience this form of hell with python but here are the reasons why dynamically typed variables suck.
- If you use them as dynamically typed variables, the code quickly becomes unmaintainable.
- When looking at someone's code, you have no idea what is being stored in a variable until you find all its assignments.
- It prevents the use of automatic bug finders being able to work on the code.
- You can't tell before you run the code, that the code will fail.
So.... what is the benefit to dynamically typed variables?
The first time you use a variable.... you don't have to say what type it is....
Instead of "int xyz=5" you just have to type "xyz=5"
So for saving you typing 3 to 4 characters once per variable.... you loose allot of convenience and code maintainability.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Daktyl198 View PostI just want to hop in and say I kinda agree with Luke_Wolf on this argument.
There are things JavaScript should be used for (interactive web pages, simple-and-stupid web games, etc) and things it really, really shouldn't be used for. Unfortunately, the die-hard JavaScript fans don't realize this, and think it can and should be use for _everything_. Hell, I saw a guy switch from cmake to node.js (writing the script himself), breaking all ARM compatibility along with introducing a ton of issues that weren't there previously. All because he "likes node.js" >_>
Comment
-
Originally posted by ua=42 View PostDynamically typed variables is one of the worst ideas in programming. I have only had to experience this form of hell with python but here are the reasons why dynamically typed variables suck.
- If you use them as dynamically typed variables, the code quickly becomes unmaintainable.
- When looking at someone's code, you have no idea what is being stored in a variable until you find all its assignments.
- It prevents the use of automatic bug finders being able to work on the code.
- You can't tell before you run the code, that the code will fail.
So.... what is the benefit to dynamically typed variables?
The first time you use a variable.... you don't have to say what type it is....
Instead of "int xyz=5" you just have to type "xyz=5"
So for saving you typing 3 to 4 characters once per variable.... you loose allot of convenience and code maintainability.
There are pros and cons for both static and dynamic languages. For example with a dynamic language you can write code in a quicker way. With static languages you can use some useful tools. They're just two examples, the list of pros and cons is longer. My point is that you can't say which is the "best type", because it depends on the situation.
Comment
Comment