Timeline for answer to Why is JavaScript not compiled to bytecode before sending over the network? by Jörg W Mittag
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 17, 2021 at 16:39 | vote | accept | zombiesauce | ||
| Jan 29, 2021 at 21:34 | comment | added | Cole Tobin | The section on caching is no longer relevant as browsers are now blocking cross domain caching. Basically, example.com’s copy of jQuery, and example.net’s (even if both reference the same CDN URL) will have their own copy in the cache. In other words, example.com’s cache is completely separate from example.net’s. | |
| Nov 10, 2020 at 22:58 | history | edited | Jörg W Mittag | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1198 characters in body
|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 10:01 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Dec 26, 2019 at 9:23 | comment | added | Caltor | In your Compression section I think it would be more accurate to say there are duplicates or repetitions rather than redundancies. The symbols you reference are almost always required. | |
| Dec 18, 2019 at 9:51 | comment | added | Jörg W Mittag | @MichaelMrozek: As long as the people on the standards committee are idealists that believe in "View Source", they have no incentive to standardize a bytecode format. As long as the people in the community can work around this using minification, they have no incentive to replace the people on the standards committee. Again: two different groups of people can have different motivations, this does not invalidate either motivation. | |
| Dec 12, 2019 at 16:10 | comment | added | Michael Mrozek | @JörgWMittag If the code is already rendered unreadable, the "it's important to be able to read the code" supporters are going to be disappointed regardless, so I'm not sure how that's an argument against compiling Javascript server-side | |
| Dec 11, 2019 at 21:41 | comment | added | Jörg W Mittag | @MichaelMrozek: The fact that different portions of the ECMAScript community (standards writers and library writers) have different reasons does not invalidate either reason. | |
| Dec 11, 2019 at 19:59 | comment | added | Michael Mrozek | Your first bullet is "it's important to be able to read the code" and your second bullet is "the code is already rendered unreadable" | |
| Dec 11, 2019 at 10:23 | comment | added | wvxvw | Seriously? Supported ActionScript? ActionScript is JavaScript, with bytecode... Also, I'm not buying either of your arguments: what you are saying is that, if bytecode existed it would've been bad (but give no evidence to that claim), and then because you believe it would've been bad, you describe how this would make other things bad (but we cannot actually ever get a proof that would've happened). Your second argument is ridiculous. There are tons of languages, and especially those you listed, which compile to many different bytecode sets. | |
| Dec 11, 2019 at 8:13 | comment | added | Luaan | @tgkprog Well, the most important point is still "It's a specific feature, and you need to have a good reason to include any feature. There was no reason to standardise JS bytecode, rather than JS language, and many reasons why it would be bad idea." :) Features need to be useful enough to not only return on their investment (which this wouldn't), but also be better than alternative features you could implement with similar effort. As Jörg notes, even today, WebAssembly doesn't care about being a target for Javascript applications - there's little point in doing that. | |
| Dec 11, 2019 at 5:02 | comment | added | tgkprog | This explains it best with main and important points first | |
| Dec 10, 2019 at 13:00 | comment | added | Rob | WebAssembly reached recommendation status as of December 5, 2019. | |
| Dec 10, 2019 at 10:53 | history | edited | Jörg W Mittag | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1481 characters in body
|
| Dec 9, 2019 at 12:37 | history | answered | Jörg W Mittag | CC BY-SA 4.0 |