On Thursday, December 18, 2014 10:59:53 AM UTC, Jerzy Głowacki wrote: > > I suppose Julia would be the successor to JavaScript if it was converted > by Emscripten and run by asm.js. But for now there seems to be an > Enscripten bug which invalidates Julia IR code.
Hi, Curious, what bug is that? You have a bug number or know what it relates to (on Emscripten side)? "Invalidates Julia IR code"? Intermediate Representation? Does the bug only affect Julia? Have anything to do with JavaScript "ints" (that it their "non-existence", JS uses doubles as int)? Did you really mean to say "Julia would be the successor" or "Julia could be a successor"? Is there any obvious "successor" or fairly much used alternative currently? I've heard about Coffeescript, Typescript and Dart etc. languages made to compile to JavaScript. And Scala.js. Scala was meant to run in JVM and Scala.js has slightly different semantics because if JS's ints. I wandered if Julia could do the same. I assume you are talking about compile Julia the language/environment to JavaScript and run the the REPL in a browser? Should it be easier to compile Julia code to C (possible now) and that C code via Emscripten to JavaScript? Emscripten says they handle "portable C code". Doesn't Intel's Julia2C claim "portable C"? I don't really see how Emscripten handles "ints". There is no requirement that C's ints are less than 64 bit? Do not even have to be two's compliment, right? I fail to see how they densely pack "ints" (that are 64-bit doubles) into 32-bit in arrays.. PS. I dreamt my first dream in Julia code tonight. Might be a sign it's the language for me.. :) Reminds me: "Dreaming in code" is a good book on (Python and) Chandler (and e.g. Kapor/Mozilla).. PS2. Is there an alternative gateway to the forums. I just hate using the web(browser it's slow). Google Groups used to be for Usenet, but not this forum..
