@BrendanEich So would I be right in thinking that the point of asm.js is to tie together all the universally supported bits of JS?
BrendanEich @BrendanEich
@no_other_alias No, all of JS (ES3) is "universally supported". http://asmjs.org/ is a no-GC-pause well-typed compiler target language.
=====
@no_other_alias is asking if asm.js is about formalizing a JS subset that's universally supported (in all browsers). Eich says no, all of JS (ES3) is universally supported (so no subsetting is required for cross-browser compabitility). Asm.js is about formalizing a JS subset that can be compiled to much faster machine code.
So I don't think Eich is making a claim about asm.js backward-compatibility here.
https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/302897797827530752
=====
Alias Cummins @no_other_alias
@BrendanEich So would I be right in thinking that the point of asm.js is to tie together all the universally supported bits of JS?
BrendanEich @BrendanEich
@no_other_alias No, all of JS (ES3) is "universally supported". http://asmjs.org/ is a no-GC-pause well-typed compiler target language.
=====
@no_other_alias is asking if asm.js is about formalizing a JS subset that's universally supported (in all browsers). Eich says no, all of JS (ES3) is universally supported (so no subsetting is required for cross-browser compabitility). Asm.js is about formalizing a JS subset that can be compiled to much faster machine code.
So I don't think Eich is making a claim about asm.js backward-compatibility here.