Criticizing JavaScriptCore is a red herring. Usually when people say
they have a problem with "JavaScript" in a browser, what they really
mean is that they hit some compatibility bug in the native code of
the engine that JavaScriptCore happened to invoke . Very few
compatibility bugs are actual JavaScript language bugs. Most of them
are bugs in the WebCore engine itself.
dave
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
On May 26, 2006, at 7:36 AM, Mike Emmel wrote:
On 5/26/06, Colin Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't mean to white knight, but I don't think Rentzsch was
saying "WebKit
sucks, Firefox roolz". I think he was merely pointing out that
there are
still problems with Dashcode becoming a full-fledged AJAX IDE.
I haven't read any of the other blog posts on Dashcode, I don't
know what
they're saying. However, I think, in general, it's important to
remember:
1) Dashcode isn't even officially released. It's only through a
mistake that
we even know about it.
2) Safari, JSCore, WebCore, and WebKit have spent a lot less time
as mature
frameworks than their Moz equivalents. There has been a lot of
improvement
since WebKit went public, and I think we're going to continue to
see more.
The "pundits" have a valid point: at this stage, JSCore is still
playing
catchup with FF. That's a bit of a red herring, though. What's
important is
that the WebKit guys are playing the game—unlike IE, which has
gone nowhere.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
-Colin
Yes but ...
It turns out I read the page on the Javascript engine a while back its
not changed much since then. It would be nice if some concrete plans
or proposal to improve JSCore were presented for example it would be
possible to integrate spidermonkey behind the JSCore api and replace
the exsisting interperter. That approach has a lot of plusses they
firefox/webkit team can join forces on the JS interpeter .
It already has a C api Bytecode support and E4X the three main
features requested.
Collaboration here is immensly valuable and should not be
underestimated.
Whats missing is a good garbage collector or more important a plugin
framework for one
and its a bit bloated this can be fixed.
Its what I conisider and obvious solution so explaining why or why not
that approach should be taken would be valuable.
Mike
On May 25, 2006, at 9:22 PM, David D. Kilzer wrote:
WebKit's JavaScript engine is a completely different code base
than the one
in Firefox. Although WebKit's JS engine has not achieved feature-
parity
with Firefox, there are a number of people spending their own time
documenting bugs, writing test cases, and coding fixes for these
bugs. And
that doesn't even include the Apple employees working on the project.
It's a lot easier to post a blog entry saying that WebKit lacks a
feature
than it is to implement a missing feature or fix a broken feature.
Dave
On May 25, 2006, at 10:50 PM, Colin Barrett wrote:
[...]
My main question is: Is WebKit's JS worse than FF's, or simply not
the same,
which could lead to breakage.
-Colin
On May 25, 2006, at 3:04 PM, Abhi Beckert wrote:
I've seen several blog posts recently (eg:
http://rentzsch.com/code/dashcodeForAjaxAppDevelopment)
that boldly
state WebKit's "ajax support" is vastly inferior to FireFox. [...]
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.opendarwin.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.opendarwin.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.opendarwin.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
