emscripten

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2010-12-14 13:56, Adam Ruppe wrote:
>> Today being online matters for languages. I have found
>> another way to (in theory) run D code on the web.
>
> I've been running D code on the web, professionally, for almost a year now.
>
> To toy around, I've also done C, C++, and even assembly.
>
> How? It runs on the server, and the client browser is just a display for its
> output and a source for its input.
>
>
> Client side scripting sucks. It's garbage. Slow, incompatible, unreliable, and a
> piece of junk platform in general - it does very little that's interesting. That's
> not even getting into the language itself.
>
> Sites that rely on it suck. They ignore the facts above, wasting my time (and
> anyone else who keeps the slow crappy scripts disabled).
>
>
>
> Now, I'm not saying "don't use it". It can do some useful things. But, don't rely
> on it. If the crappiness of javascript, the language (as opposed to the browser
> platform, which sucks in its own right), it seriously affecting your website, it
> means you're using too much of it and/or you're using it for the wrong thing. Some
> annoyance? Yeah, guaranteed. Enough to warrant switching to a different
> language... yet still be locked in the browser? blargh.

Have you tried, for example, CoffeeScript: 
http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/ ? A language that compiles to 
JavaScript.

> Thus, anything that compiles to javascript is a failure out of the gate in my
> eyes. It is guaranteed to suck and is virtually worthless anyway, even if it works
> well.
>
>
> Which brings me to emscripten... it most certainly does not work well! The Python
> example took a couple *minutes* to load for me, and actually running some python
> code took seconds each time.
>
> Maybe a magic wand will be waved and it will magically become fast, but I doubt
> it. Even so however, it's pretty worthless.


-- 
/Jacob Carlborg