News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Asm.js: a strict subset of js for compilers – working draft by mhd on Friday February 15, 2013 @01:19PM (#5227520)
Reminds me a bit of efforts like C--, which sought to seek a simpler pseudo-assembly used as some kind of intermediate language for compilers. But those efforts never gained much traction, whereas I think that some transpilers actually exploited a few features beyond even normal, full-fleged C -- namely GCC extensions -- to make some features easier and/or faster (it's been a while, but it was probably some trampolining optimization).

Let's see how it turns out.

As for something completely different, I've always wondered how it would be to program a webapp in a rather different language than JS -- most transpiled languages aren't that fundamentally different from JS. And Emscripten seems mostly used to port some code that "runs in a box". Wonder how far one could come doing some stereotypically Web 2.0 things in e.g. Pascal.

Re:Asm.js: a strict subset of js for compilers – working draft by aaronblohowiak on Friday February 15, 2013 @01:31PM (#5227589)
Elm and Roy are quite different in that they abandon normal js semantics.. as far as going to a more blub language, please do report your experimental results!
Re:Asm.js: a strict subset of js for compilers – working draft by swannodette on Friday February 15, 2013 @01:38PM (#5227641)
ClojureScript is also quite different from JavaScript - http://himera.herokuapp.com/synonym.html
Re:Asm.js: a strict subset of js for compilers – working draft by mhd on Friday February 15, 2013 @01:46PM (#5227695)
That's mostly what I was talking about, programming in a more restrictive language, probably strictly imperative, without closures etc.
Re:Asm.js: a strict subset of js for compilers – working draft by nnethercote on Friday February 15, 2013 @07:22PM (#5229680)
If C-- had been a subset of C, then it would be more comparable. Having immediate compatibility with existing implementations makes adoption vastly easier.