On 28 Jul 2013, at 21:12 , Norbert Lindenberg wrote: > [Resending because mail from my mail host was temporarily blocked by spamcop.] > > On Jul 26, 2013, at 12:29 , Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Steve Fink wrote: >>> On Fri 26 Jul 2013 10:32:09 AM PDT, Brendan Eich wrote: >>>> Norbert asked me yesterday whether we shouldn't start moving from >>>> Python to JS. The obstacle historically has been lack of build-prereq >>>> industry-grade "js shells" already installed. Does node change that? >>> >>> Not in my opinion. It's common to be on a system with python and >>> without Node. >> >> Ok, that is overriding. > > Why? Anybody who wants to build SpiderMonkey or Firefox has to install a set > of tools first - we don't expect to be able to build these systems on a > computer that was just pulled out of the box. Why can't that set of tools > include a prebuilt JS shell?
Or include a JS shell as a first build step? JSLite now also builds from a single 'amalgamated' source file, so that first step could be as easy as 'gcc -o js -lm jslite.c'. JSLite is not quite "industrial strength" yet, but it is getting close. One could also think of a staged build, a bit like a staged boot loader. The simple JS shell is used to build a basic version of the SpiderMonkey shell (e.g. just interpreted) which in turn is used in the full build. This way there is a lot of relevant chow in the build sequence. Paul _______________________________________________ dev-tech-js-engine-internals mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine-internals
