Experiments with emscripten and D

Ramon spam at thanks.no
Tue Aug 20 16:43:44 PDT 2013


I agree with those who are against it.

For a variety of reasons, one of them being that, yes, anything 
that produces javasc*t does a) recognize js and b) embold and 
support it.

Web pages are/should be about *content* not about eye candy and 
gadgets. Furthermore, increasingly many (like myself) have js 
filters, often in "brutal" mode (cutting out *all* js and 
enabling it expressly if needed/wished).

The real solution isn't to add one more way to the existing 3 
gazillion ways for js but to create a real alternative.
Seen from D's perspective a D interpreter would be a start. 
Although, frankly, most web hackers won't like it; it's too 
unfriendly and hard, they want some kind of web basic (which js 
happens to be).

And why and what for? HTML5 is rich enough. If I want to put 
serious computing work on the client I'd rather put it in a web 
server (written in D). And if I just want to put fancy blabla 
into a browser I can chose from 2,5 gazillion toys.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list