Re:Experimental support for WebAssembly in V8
by tadlan on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @11:10AM
(#11290196)
Or julia. Which is 1000th better than js
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Experimental support for WebAssembly in V8
by CyberDildonics on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @12:57PM
(#11291075)
Julia would still require the garbage collector but I don't think the downvotes here are fair at all. If there was a language that would be a natural transition to people used to javascript but wanting native speed, julia would be it. In a way it is a glimpse of what javascript could have been given a lot of experience and much more design.
Re:Experimental support for WebAssembly in V8
by tanlermin on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @01:21PM
(#11291273)
So how big are the Julia binaries? Would it still need a VM?
Re:Experimental support for WebAssembly in V8
by CyberDildonics on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @01:09PM
(#11298903)
At the moment actually that would be a pretty big problem, the dependencies are very large, mostly because that hasn't been a priority I think.
There has been work released recently which allows programs to be compiled to native binaries if they aren't dynamically evaluating anything however.