[evincarofautumn]

Sure. You could do worse than RubyJS as well. This project is implementing the standard set by the reference implementation of Ruby and its standard library. And having used Ruby a bit, I’ve come to find its standard library quite good, as dynamic languages go. So it doesn’t much matter that ES5 features are “more native”—here and now, it’s still a matter of preference.

[arcatek]

I don't really see why RubyJS would be better than PHP.js.

And I'm definitely not saying that PHP.js should be used.

[edit] To be more specific, I really don't see the point of using a third-party library when the native methods are available. IMHO, if you choose a language, you should stick with it.

[sebilasse]

RubyJS creator here. I was just missing so many (native) methods in javascript. i liked the standard library of javascript and there is an extensive public ruby testsuite that i could use to test my implementation against. Plus i liked the idea of taking something that already works elsewhere and translate it JS, instead of coming up with my own API. IMO it's the same as using underscore/lodash, stringjs, etc, just all in the same library with the same coding standards and interoperability between classes.

[ericb]

What is the license currently? It says Affero in the presentation, but github shows MIT license?