Subject: RE: Style vs. transformation
From: "Reynolds, Gregg" <greynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:42:39 -0600
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darrin Smart [SMTP:darrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Are there any free implementations of JavaScript (with source)?
>
Netscape Navigator? Well, real soon now.
A naive question (I'm shaky on interpreter implementation): Why not
specify the scripting language abstractly, as a collection of functions
and datatypes. So instead of stipulating, for example, that the
addition operator is infixed '+', you stipulate that the addition
operator (whatever it looks like) applied to numeric args sums them and
returns a number. Of course you need a reference concrete language (is
this too SGMLish?), but conformance would be defined in terms of the
abstract grammar and semantics. In other words, why not specify a
meta-language from which implementation languages "inherit".
I know the obvious objection is that "we" want a one scripting language
that will work everywhere. But how hard would it be to then support
multiple languages? (The foregoing is not a rhetorical question.)
Wouldn't it just be a case of parsing the source, tranlating it into a
native form with simple table lookups, and proceding? Speaking as an
unreasonable user (writer of scripts) I demand Scheme. But being an
equally unreasonable browser, I demand support for JavaScript, Python,
and whatever other language web authors may choose. So let the market
decide - it's virtually certain that all vendors would stick with
javascript, but who knows? I would spend my money on a more versatile
browser.
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
| Current Thread |
|
Frank Boumphrey - Wed, 4 Mar 1998 12:18:02 -0500 (EST)
Reynolds, Gregg - Wed, 4 Mar 1998 17:44:40 -0500 (EST) <=
Smith, Brooke - Wed, 4 Mar 1998 18:19:15 -0500 (EST)
Jonathan Marsh - Wed, 4 Mar 1998 18:55:34 -0500 (EST)
|
|