On Sep 6, 3:19 pm, lkcl <luke.leigh...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Aug 16, 1:29 am, Douglas Alan <darkwate...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think the future of client-side browser programming is > > actuallyJavaScript, not ActionScript, though that future may morph into one > > that mostly usesJavaScriptas a virtual machine. This is the approach > > that Google Web Toolkit takes. It lets you write your client-side code > > in Java, and that is then compiled intoJavaScript. > > as does pyjamas.http://pyjs.org > this also compiles intojavascript. > the source language: python.
oh - i forgot: there's skulpt as well. http://code.google.com/p/skulpt. skulpt aims to be a python interpreter (written in javascript) first, with an aim to be a browser-based UI toolkit second. pyjamas is the other way round (because it's more useful that way). skulpt's current python compatibility, as a less mature project, is not as good as pyjamas' "--strict" mode, where we have metaclasses and a near-full implementation of type() etc. it's fair to say that the more "python-correct" you get, the more dreadful the performance of the resultant javascript. strict typechecked prototypes (in python) a la lisp and a la compiled languages would open the floodgates to keep the same performance as the pyjamas -O option. but - basically, both projects demonstrate that the features of each language are at least interchangeable. this comes as somethin of a surprise to many people. java on the other hand is dreadful. the typechecking _seriously_ impedes progress, as the pypy developers found out and can tell you more about. l. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
