Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #37345 > unrolled thread

Compilers for Javascript?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  Compilers for Javascript? groovee@cyberdude.com - 2019-09-23 07:56 -0700
    Re: Compilers for Javascript? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-09-23 17:37 +0200
      Re: Compilers for Javascript? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-23 20:01 +0100
        Re: Compilers for Javascript? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-09-23 22:20 +0200
          Re: Compilers for Javascript? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-23 21:29 +0100
          Re: Compilers for Javascript? Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-23 14:40 -0700
            Re: Compilers for Javascript? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-09-24 11:45 +0200
              Re: Compilers for Javascript? Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-24 04:39 -0700
                Re: Compilers for Javascript? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-09-24 22:50 +0200
                Re: Compilers for Javascript? groovee@cyberdude.com - 2019-09-25 12:13 -0700
                  Re: Compilers for Javascript? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2019-09-25 13:10 -0700
                    Re: Compilers for Javascript? groovee@cyberdude.com - 2019-09-26 08:38 -0700
                      Re: Compilers for Javascript? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-09-26 20:17 +0200
                      Re: Compilers for Javascript? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2019-09-26 12:30 -0700
                      Re: Compilers for Javascript? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2019-09-26 12:38 -0700
                  Re: Compilers for Javascript? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-09-26 01:46 +0200
                  Re: Compilers for Javascript? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-09-26 20:19 +0200
                    Re: Compilers for Javascript? groovee@cyberdude.com - 2019-09-26 23:59 -0700
              Re: Compilers for Javascript? Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-24 04:54 -0700
            Re: Compilers for Javascript? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-09-26 01:40 +0200
              Re: Compilers for Javascript? Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2019-09-25 22:43 -0700
                Re: Compilers for Javascript? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-09-26 12:14 +0200
                Re: Compilers for Javascript? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-09-26 17:05 +0200
      Re: Compilers for Javascript? dr.j.r.stockton@gmail.com - 2019-09-24 02:04 -0700
        Re: Compilers for Javascript? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2019-09-24 12:11 +0200
          Re: Compilers for Javascript? dr.j.r.stockton@gmail.com - 2019-09-24 06:02 -0700
    Re: Compilers for Javascript? JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2019-09-24 19:34 +0700
    Re: Compilers for Javascript? Joao Rodrigues <jr.c.l.js@gmail.com> - 2019-09-24 10:16 -0300
      Re: Compilers for Javascript? JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2019-09-25 23:47 +0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#37345 — Compilers for Javascript?

Hi,
I was wondering if there were any COMPILERS for JS, that can make an executable? I came across this one, thought I'd tell yall about it (I've not used it myself yet):

https://nectarjs.com/#


Are there any others? How do they compare, if anyone knows?



Thanks! :)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#37346

groovee@cyberdude.com wrote on 23 Sep 2019 in comp.lang.javascript:

> I was wondering if there were any COMPILERS for JS, that can make an
> executable? I came across this one, thought I'd tell yall about it (I've
> not used it myself yet): 

Why and where would you need one?

[Meaning, I don't think you would, but let's discuss that first.]

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37347

"Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> writes:

> groovee@cyberdude.com wrote on 23 Sep 2019 in comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> I was wondering if there were any COMPILERS for JS, that can make an
>> executable? I came across this one, thought I'd tell yall about it (I've
>> not used it myself yet): 
>
> Why and where would you need one?

That's an odd question, so I'm wondering if I've missed the point.  Are
you talking specifically to the OP?  Are you stressing the "need"?  If
neither, and you just meant why would anyone want one, I would have
thought it's obvious.

> [Meaning, I don't think you would, but let's discuss that first.]

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37348

Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote on 23 Sep 2019 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> writes:
> 
>> groovee@cyberdude.com wrote on 23 Sep 2019 in comp.lang.javascript:
>>
>>> I was wondering if there were any COMPILERS for JS, that can make an
>>> executable? I came across this one, thought I'd tell yall about it (I've
>>> not used it myself yet): 
>>
>> Why and where would you need one?
> 
> That's an odd question, so I'm wondering if I've missed the point.  Are
> you talking specifically to the OP?  Are you stressing the "need"?  If
> neither, and you just meant why would anyone want one, I would have
> thought it's obvious.

Discussion is not about skipping what is obvious to someone.

One could "want" a compiler just for the fun of it,
but if it is not usefull outside the fun, 
I would call that: "no need".

Let's start with the "WHERE":

Javascript is used on many different platforms, and on its own misses the 
interfaces with the outside. So Javascript in a browser uses the DOM as 
input/output interface, Javascript in a specific text-editor only needs to 
interface with the text at hand, Javascript on a server, say in classic ASP, 
cannot interface the DOM or the user directly, Javascript in Cscript/Wscript 
again has a different interface, like the line-interface and the file-
interface.

Then The "WHY":

This depends on the answer to the first question, 
and then one should answer:

Is it about speed?
Is it about file-size?
Is it about obfuscation?
Etc.

So I think the question is not that odd,
and I doubt can be answered in general,
and in specific, say in a browser or in an editor, 
it probably is not usefull.

>> [Meaning, I don't think you would, but let's discuss that first.]

See, this was part of the answer. 

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37349

"Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> writes:

> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote on 23 Sep 2019 in 
> comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> writes:
>> 
>>> groovee@cyberdude.com wrote on 23 Sep 2019 in comp.lang.javascript:
>>>
>>>> I was wondering if there were any COMPILERS for JS, that can make an
>>>> executable? I came across this one, thought I'd tell yall about it (I've
>>>> not used it myself yet): 
>>>
>>> Why and where would you need one?
>> 
>> That's an odd question, so I'm wondering if I've missed the point.  Are
>> you talking specifically to the OP?  Are you stressing the "need"?  If
>> neither, and you just meant why would anyone want one, I would have
>> thought it's obvious.
>
> Discussion is not about skipping what is obvious to someone.

Sure.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37350

Den måndag 23 september 2019 kl. 22:20:13 UTC+2 skrev Evertjan.:
> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote on 23 Sep 2019 in 
> comp.lang.javascript:
> 
> > "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> writes:
> > 
> >> groovee@cyberdude.com wrote on 23 Sep 2019 in comp.lang.javascript:
> >>
> >>> I was wondering if there were any COMPILERS for JS, that can make an
> >>> executable? I came across this one, thought I'd tell yall about it (I've
> >>> not used it myself yet): 
> >>
> >> Why and where would you need one?
> > 
> > That's an odd question, so I'm wondering if I've missed the point.  Are
> > you talking specifically to the OP?  Are you stressing the "need"?  If
> > neither, and you just meant why would anyone want one, I would have
> > thought it's obvious.
> 
> Discussion is not about skipping what is obvious to someone.
> 
> One could "want" a compiler just for the fun of it,
> but if it is not usefull outside the fun, 
> I would call that: "no need".
> 
> Let's start with the "WHERE":
> 
> Javascript is used on many different platforms, and on its own misses the 
> interfaces with the outside. So Javascript in a browser uses the DOM as 
> input/output interface, Javascript in a specific text-editor only needs to 
> interface with the text at hand, Javascript on a server, say in classic ASP, 
> cannot interface the DOM or the user directly, Javascript in Cscript/Wscript 
> again has a different interface, like the line-interface and the file-
> interface.
> 
> Then The "WHY":
> 
> This depends on the answer to the first question, 
> and then one should answer:
> 
> Is it about speed?
> Is it about file-size?
> Is it about obfuscation?
> Etc.
> 
> So I think the question is not that odd,
> and I doubt can be answered in general,
> and in specific, say in a browser or in an editor, 
> it probably is not usefull.
> 
> >> [Meaning, I don't think you would, but let's discuss that first.]
> 
> See, this was part of the answer. 
> 
> -- 
> Evertjan.
> The Netherlands.
> (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

I am not sure Phonegap compile the files or if it just run the script in a browser package for the native platform, but it do create exe cutatbles for Android, Win and Mac. And they seem to have access to some part of filesystem. 

"At least on Android the only one i have tested"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37352

=?UTF-8?Q?Jonas_Th=C3=B6rnvall?= <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote on 23
Sep 2019 in comp.lang.javascript: 

> I am not sure

You better be!

> Phonegap compile 

Is Phonegap a plural? Wat is a "Phonegap"?

> the files or if it just run the script in
> a browser package

Wat is a "package"?

A **script** is run by an engine-programme,
An **executable** runs on the microprocessor.

A script could be run as a realtime compiled executable,
I think after Pascal, and that via "intermediate code", 
that was not done anymore.

> for the native platform,

What is "the native platform"??

> but it do create executatbles for Android, Win and Mac. 

Is "it" a plural?

"executatbles", do you mean "executables"?

"Creating executables" from a script is called **compiling**.

How do you know "it" [What "it?] does that?

> And they 

Who are "they"? The Russians?

> seem to have access to some part of filesystem. 

So?
 
> "At least on Android the only one i have tested"

What did you test, the access to the file system? And how did you test that?

And "who" are having that, the compiling engine or the executable?

The compiling engine must have access to the file system to store the 
executable for later use anyway.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37354

Den tisdag 24 september 2019 kl. 11:45:05 UTC+2 skrev Evertjan.:
> =?UTF-8?Q?Jonas_Th=C3=B6rnvall?= <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote on 23
> Sep 2019 in comp.lang.javascript: 
> 
> > I am not sure
> 
> You better be!
> 
> > Phonegap compile 
> 
> Is Phonegap a plural? Wat is a "Phonegap"?
> 
> > the files or if it just run the script in
> > a browser package
> 
> Wat is a "package"?
> 
> A **script** is run by an engine-programme,
> An **executable** runs on the microprocessor.
> 
> A script could be run as a realtime compiled executable,
> I think after Pascal, and that via "intermediate code", 
> that was not done anymore.
> 
> > for the native platform,
> 
> What is "the native platform"??
> 
> > but it do create executatbles for Android, Win and Mac. 
> 
> Is "it" a plural?
> 
> "executatbles", do you mean "executables"?
> 
> "Creating executables" from a script is called **compiling**.
> 
> How do you know "it" [What "it?] does that?
> 
> > And they 
> 
> Who are "they"? The Russians?
> 
> > seem to have access to some part of filesystem. 
> 
> So?
>  
> > "At least on Android the only one i have tested"
> 
> What did you test, the access to the file system? And how did you test that?
> 
> And "who" are having that, the compiling engine or the executable?


> 
> The compiling engine must have access to the file system to store the 
> executable for later use anyway.
> 
> -- 
> Evertjan.
> The Netherlands.
> (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

Fuck you are annoying EvertJan, Åhonegap is an application by Adobe. And it "probably" deliver a package, "a compiled browser" and "your script" in a package exe. "An executable browser script monolith" i guess you could call a package?. It does not however compile your code. A native platform is the architecture "the package" will run on. Yeah it do produce executables "packages"  in plural form for the platform "architecture" of you choice.

No i do not think it comiple the script it is in the executable package you moron "the executabel package is a browser that run the script".

No "they" is the packages you moron.

I made an executable Android package APK from my midisequenser script, i run the package, the script opens files it has code to reach filesystem. And it did at least in my "Android emulator" it is called Bluestacks.

You never feel annoyed can't seconguess anything, but have to go all in anal retentive on texts? Isn't that annoying as hell reading newspaper articles, but maybe you just read manuals LoL

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37371

<jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote on 24 Sep 2019 in comp.lang.javascript:

> Fuck you are annoying EvertJan

Didn't you grow up yet?


-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37390

On Tuesday, 24 September 2019 17:09:14 UTC+5:30, Jonas Thörnvall  wrote:

> Fuck you are annoying EvertJan, 

To put it Mildly! :)

Yes, it was speed, ie. performance I was Generally talking about. ...I just LIKE the "feeling" of an EXE! :)

Obfuscation wouldn't hurt either - matter of fact, I was wondering, if this "NectarJS" thing exists, why is node.js needed at all???

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37393

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 2:13:24 PM UTC-5, gro...@cyberdude.com wrote:
> Yes, it was speed, ie. performance I was Generally talking about. ...I just LIKE the "feeling" of an EXE! :)
> 
> Obfuscation wouldn't hurt either - matter of fact, I was wondering, if this "NectarJS" thing exists, why is node.js needed at all???


JavaScript is probably fast enough for your use case. Modern engines utilize a JIT. I've seen benchmarks from years ago where the speed was 50% the speed of native is not better. There have been significant improvements since then:

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/151403-firefox-sticks-it-to-google-with-odinmonkey-which-can-boost-javascript-performance-by-1000-or-more

https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/11/massive-the-asm-js-benchmark/

If you utilize the asm.js <http://asmjs.org/> subset of JavaScript you can even guarantee that the garbage collector will not run during execution. 

What you're looking for these days is a JavaScript -> WebAssembly compiler which is based on the original asm.js hack. There are runtimes being introduced often:

https://wasmtime.dev/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37410

On Thursday, 26 September 2019 01:40:22 UTC+5:30, Michael Haufe (TNO)  wrote:

> 
> If you utilize the asm.js <http://asmjs.org/> subset of JavaScript you can even guarantee that the garbage collector will not run during execution. 
> 
> What you're looking for these days is a JavaScript -> WebAssembly compiler which is based on the original asm.js hack. There are runtimes being introduced often:
> 
> https://wasmtime.dev/

Sorry - I have only a *hazy* idea what these are - do they give an executable I can run on the cmd line or not? For Linux??

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37414

groovee@cyberdude.com:

> On Thursday, 26 September 2019 01:40:22 UTC+5:30, Michael Haufe (TNO)
> wrote:
[...]
>> https://wasmtime.dev/
> 
> Sorry - I have only a *hazy* idea what these are - do they give an
> executable I can run on the cmd line or not? For Linux??

No.


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37418

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 10:38:11 AM UTC-5, gro...@cyberdude.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 26 September 2019 01:40:22 UTC+5:30, Michael Haufe (TNO)  wrote:
> 
> > If you utilize the asm.js <http://asmjs.org/> subset of JavaScript you can even guarantee that the garbage collector will not run during execution. 
> > 
> > What you're looking for these days is a JavaScript -> WebAssembly compiler which is based on the original asm.js hack. There are runtimes being introduced often:
> > 
> > https://wasmtime.dev/
> 
> Sorry - I have only a *hazy* idea what these are - do they give an executable I can run on the cmd line or not? For Linux??


See the basics:

What it is:
<https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/WebAssembly>

Non web execution:
<https://webassembly.org/docs/non-web/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37419

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 10:38:11 AM UTC-5, gro...@cyberdude.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 26 September 2019 01:40:22 UTC+5:30, Michael Haufe (TNO)  wrote:
> 
> > 
> > If you utilize the asm.js <http://asmjs.org/> subset of JavaScript you can even guarantee that the garbage collector will not run during execution. 
> > 
> > What you're looking for these days is a JavaScript -> WebAssembly compiler which is based on the original asm.js hack. There are runtimes being introduced often:
> > 
> > https://wasmtime.dev/
> 
> Sorry - I have only a *hazy* idea what these are - do they give an executable I can run on the cmd line or not? For Linux??

Additional overview:

<https://hacks.mozilla.org/2017/02/a-cartoon-intro-to-webassembly/>

This is bleeding edge, but there does exist a TypeScript to wasm compiler. I haven't used it yet, but it looks promising and might be my first choice when I engage on a project that needs it (Game engine, compiler, etc.):

<https://docs.assemblyscript.org/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37396

groovee@cyberdude.com:

> On Tuesday, 24 September 2019 17:09:14 UTC+5:30, Jonas Thörnvall
> wrote:
> 
>> Fuck you are annoying EvertJan,
> 
> To put it Mildly! :)
> 
> Yes, it was speed, ie. performance I was Generally talking about.
> ...I just LIKE the "feeling" of an EXE! :)
> 
> Obfuscation wouldn't hurt either - matter of fact, I was wondering,
> if this "NectarJS" thing exists, why is node.js needed at all???

Just compare:

NectarJS:

<https://nectarjs.com>
<https://nectar-lang.com>

node.js:

<https://nodejs.org/en/>
<https://nodejs.org/docs/latest-v11.x/api/>




-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37415

groovee@cyberdude.com:

> On Tuesday, 24 September 2019 17:09:14 UTC+5:30, Jonas Thörnvall
> wrote:
> 
>> Fuck you are annoying EvertJan,
> 
> To put it Mildly! :)
> 
> Yes, it was speed, ie. performance I was Generally talking about.
> ...I just LIKE the "feeling" of an EXE! :)

What exactly is your use case of JavaScript compiled to a binary?


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37424

On Thursday, 26 September 2019 23:49:14 UTC+5:30, Arno Welzel  wrote:

> > Yes, it was speed, ie. performance I was Generally talking about.
> > ...I just LIKE the "feeling" of an EXE! :)
> 
> What exactly is your use case of JavaScript compiled to a binary?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Arno Welzel
> https://arnowelzel.de

Well, if you must know, I was kind of planning on writing a particular program *in asm*, like in the old days, implementing the same program in JS, and seeing whether I could Beat the compiler! :) Donno whether I can, (indeed I have no idea what kind of code NectarJS *produces*), but that was what I was gonna *try*! :) So now you know :)

Also, sizecoding was somewhat on the agenda too.... :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37355

Den tisdag 24 september 2019 kl. 11:45:05 UTC+2 skrev Evertjan.:
> =?UTF-8?Q?Jonas_Th=C3=B6rnvall?= <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote on 23
> Sep 2019 in comp.lang.javascript: 
> 
> > I am not sure
> 
> You better be!
> 
> > Phonegap compile 
> 
> Is Phonegap a plural? Wat is a "Phonegap"?
> 
> > the files or if it just run the script in
> > a browser package
> 
> Wat is a "package"?
> 
> A **script** is run by an engine-programme,
> An **executable** runs on the microprocessor.
> 
> A script could be run as a realtime compiled executable,
> I think after Pascal, and that via "intermediate code", 
> that was not done anymore.
> 
> > for the native platform,
> 
> What is "the native platform"??
> 
> > but it do create executatbles for Android, Win and Mac. 
> 
> Is "it" a plural?
> 
> "executatbles", do you mean "executables"?
> 
> "Creating executables" from a script is called **compiling**.
> 
> How do you know "it" [What "it?] does that?
> 
> > And they 
> 
> Who are "they"? The Russians?
> 
> > seem to have access to some part of filesystem. 
> 
> So?
>  
> > "At least on Android the only one i have tested"
> 
> What did you test, the access to the file system? And how did you test that?
> 
> And "who" are having that, the compiling engine or the executable?
> 
> The compiling engine must have access to the file system to store the 
> executable for later use anyway.
> 
> -- 
> Evertjan.
> The Netherlands.
> (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

Instead of being anal retentive about my semantics, how about you go anal retentive over syntax for a while, a ***bug*** in the javascript ***engine***.

At least you could come up with a solution to sidestep it, "which i can't" because i am clueless about how the code withunder the "scriptengine" do what it do.

The fault/bug goes like this when you have a thread with a scrollbar running that moves horisontal over canvas, and write out rectangles that chase it with an offset, somehow the second x argument "the length". Start to add more pixels on canvas, then you can see it do in the console.

Yes that is a bug, at very low level with the canvas drawing. Some variable pointers that fucks up a memory area.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37395

Jonas Thörnvall:

> I am not sure Phonegap compile the files or if it just run the script
> in a browser package for the native platform, but it do create exe
> cutatbles for Android, Win and Mac. And they seem to have access to
> some part of filesystem.

Adobe Phonegap (<https://phonegap.com>) is a tool to build applications
for mobile devices using JavaScript and HTML and uses Cordova
(<https://cordova.apache.org/>).

The "executable" is a bundled package with a runtime and a browser
component and interfaces for JavaScript to provide access to the API of
the mobile OS.

-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web