Just because the code is open source doesn't mean there's no usage restrictions in what you can do with it. Most open source licenses take a dim view of using open source code in closed source commercial software, as there's always a risk that if it was allowed then the commercial organization would later claim the code as their own and attempt to sue the original creator and/or other projects that also use the code for breach of copyright. And while in theory such a case would go the creator's way, most open source projects are created by small businesses and hobbyists, whereas the likes of Microsoft have entire departments full of high priced lawyers....
On Nov 15, 4:48 am, "Derek Gathright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just randomly came across this Ajaxian podcast episode from a while back > that answers the very question I posed. > > http://ajaxian.com/archives/audible-ajax-episode-20-project-tamarin > > Interestingly, Adobe open-sourced their JIT implementation of Javascript > after a 3 year complete rewrite, and that's what Mozilla, Adobe, and others > are collaborating on for the Tamerin Project. Some say it can increase > speeds up 1ox. While Tamarin won't be in Firefox 3, it will be a later > addition, likely Firefox 4 sometime in late '08. In typical Microsoft > fashion, they are currently rewriting their own Javascript engine (JScript) > and they intend to match, or exceed Tamarin's speed. Why doesn't MS just > use Tamarin as well since it is open-source? Here's one instance where I'm > glad MS is sticking to their own sandbox cause it just means more > competition. If they can't beat Tamarin when they can look at Tamarin's > code as much as they want, that's pretty sad. > > So, to completely answer my question, it looks as if the interpreter is the > current bottleneck, but one interviewee said the bottleneck for most AJAX > apps will be network speed in the near future. > > On 10/2/07, Robert Koberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 11:26 -0500, Derek Gathright wrote: > > > Thanks for the link, interesting stuff. > > > > After looking through info on Rhino, I was left with the question... > > > why build the JS core engine in Java and not a non-interpreted > > > language? > > > You can compile them to byte code and create classes (I am guessing that > > is why rhino performs much better in the 'real world' test cases). I use > > them for a webapp in a servlet container. > > > best, > > -Rob
