Javascript bytecode

[Peter Alexander]

On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 18:11:37 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Javascript proves that bytecode is not required for "write 
> once, run everywhere", which was one of the pitches for 
> bytecode.
>
> What is required for w.o.r.e. is a specification for the source 
> code that precludes undefined and implementation defined 
> behavior.

Yes, bytecode isn't strictly required, but it's certainly 
desirable. Bytecode is much easier to interpret, much easier to 
compile to, and more compact.

The downside of bytecode is loss of high-level meaning... but 
that depends on the bytecode. There's nothing stopping the 
bytecode from being a serialised AST (actually, that would be 
ideal).

> Note also that Typescript compiles to Javascript. I suspect 
> there are other languages that do so, too.

There are lots. It's probably the most compiled-to high level 
language language out there (including C).