The size of the Javascript generated by Scala.js alone makes it a non starter for serious projects.
Re:Advanced programming languages (2009)
by premium-concern on Sunday June 19, 2016 @04:41PM
(#11934583)
Yeah, these tens of kilobytes of JS next to those ten badly compressed 600kB jpgs are really killing it.
this isn't a fair comparison. It fails to account for what happens after the files are downloaded, which is where overall js code size has an outsized effect.
Re:Advanced programming languages (2009)
by premium-concern on Monday June 20, 2016 @07:15AM
(#11937272)
I think people have been including jQuery just fine for the last decade.
Yes, but jquery is much smaller than an empty scala.js app. jquery is about 25kb gzipped and minified (the other comment used the raw size) whereas scala js is 45kb for an empty application.
TBH, You don't use scala.js to write hello world apps. I'm much more curious how Scala.js handles a 100Kloc app, but I haven't seen any data on that.
Look at here: https://www.scala-js.org/
"The generated JavaScript is both fast and small, starting from 45kB gzipped for a full application." - 45kB... jQuery is ~80kB.
jQuery gzipped and minified is 25kb. You're comparing raw to compressed.
Cedric, how does a 45KB js file make Scala a non-starter?
What is Scala native? Is there a Scala that doesn't rely on the JVM for hosting?
Re:Advanced programming languages (2009)
by neverminder on Sunday June 19, 2016 @04:13PM
(#11934465)
I feel like turning Scala into a cross-platform language is the best idea possible. I'd love to see Scala someday be able to just dump out WebAssembly, or JVM bytecode, or LLVM IR, or whatever the next "hip" format is, while keeping the language the same.
I also find it shocking how hard people are pushing Typescript when Scala.js exists. Why would you ever subject yourself to TS?!?!