Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

As people have commented, I'm suggesting writing a javascript function which takes pre-compiled bytecode; like so;

    function interpret(bytecode) {
        // stack machine implementation goes here
    }
And called like so;

   var bytecode = load("http://my.domain.com/myscript.bytecode");
   interpret(bytecode);
     
I'm not suggesting that bytecode is inherently slow -- just that I could take a great stab at writing a slow bytecode interpreter in JavaScript. ;)

So under this scheme, you could do a server-side compilation of any language -- let's imagine Pascal as an example -- and deliver it back to the client as bytecode. Now you've broken the browser dependence on Javascript. At the cost of a VM written in JavaScript.



I'm suggesting writing a javascript function which takes pre-compiled bytecode

Sorry, I misunderstood.

Now you've broken the browser dependence on Javascript. At the cost of a VM written in JavaScript.

I keep looking at these two sentences again. On one hand I know what you mean. On the other hand, this doesn't make any sense because it contradicts itself. (Which is why I misunderstood the original comment, I think.)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: