On Jun 25, 2008, at 11:46 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > Yes, and of course SpiderMonkey. For no particularly good reason I > simply have the other two positioned in my mind as perhaps being > more (technically) approachable for somebody who wanted to plunge > into such an effort. I may well be misguided in that perception.
(Was that a cut? :-P) It's true, SpiderMonkey won't win any beauty pageants, but it gets the job done and people do hack on it. No mature and/or optimized engine is all that easy to hack on, and C or C++ is the wrong language for implementing interpreters and compilers, if the goal is clarity and extensibility. Java is better, SML is much better -- to pick non-random examples. Which reminds me, any thoughts on the RI subset? /be > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brendan Eich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 10:16 PM > To: Allen Wirfs-Brock > Cc: Robert Sayre; es4-discuss; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: ES 3.1 implementations? > > On Jun 25, 2008, at 8:53 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > >> It would be great if somebody wanted to work on a proof of concept >> ES 3.1 implementation in a open code bases such as such as Webkit >> or Rhino. > > Don't forget SpiderMonkey. > >> If anybody is interested in volunteering send a not to es3.x- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > There's the ES4 RI as well -- did you have anyone already lined up to > work on the 3.1 subset of it? > > /be > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Es4-discuss mailing list > Es4-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
