[lucian1900]

> int types are in JS and have been since 1995, due to the bitwise logical and shift ops.

That's like saying int64 is a subset of float64 because you can use two floats to encode it.

> arbitrary jumps are a deoptimizer and verifier hazard

True, this would be one of the decisions to be made when designing a bytecode format.

> You mix speed ("just as slow" -- wait, we're fast at asm.js input, faster on startup than PNaCl -- did you read the post?)

You misunderstood. Asm.js running on a browser that doesn't have support for it is just as slow as output from bytecode-to-JS compiler would be. And for browsers that do have support, both asm.js and a hypothetical bytecode would behave the same.

The major differences with a bytecode would be requiring two "executables" and a better semantic model.

Also, I'm not necessarily defending PNaCl itself, nor did I even bring it up.

> No ad hominem fallacies, please!

I'm not sure where you got that, the Trojan comment was meant positively.

I think it would be nice if Mozilla introduced a bytecode (superset of asm.js semantics), once asm.js itself was accepted.

[BrendanEich]

> That's like saying int64 is a subset of float64 because you can use two floats to encode it.

No. (x>>>0) is uint32(x), (x|0) is int32(x). Please read http://asmjs.org/spec/latest/.

> True, this would be one of the decisions to be made when designing a bytecode format.

Indeed, no clean-slate design, we have learned from the past. Dropping goto leaves less to change in asm.js. You need to produce the missing semantics or else we're just arguing syntax.

> Asm.js running on a browser that doesn't have support for it is just as slow as output from bytecode-to-JS compiler would be.

No, asm.js on browsers that do not use AOT compilation is already faster than non-asm.js for the workloads of interest (compiled from C/C++, etc.).

Anyway, speed was not the issue. => evolution is harder with two syntaxes.

Trojan is usually pejorative -- beware Greeks bearing gifts and all that ;-). No worries, but really, it does not make sense to do a second syntax for asm.js, at least not yet. Maybe in the farther future when JS has reached some fixed point.

/be

[lucian1900]

> No, asm.js on browsers that do not use AOT compilation is already faster than non-asm.js for the workloads of interest (compiled from C/C++, etc.).

That would be a bytecode-to-asm.js compiler. Hence, no difference besides distribution.

I was not aware so many features are getting added to JS for the sake of asm.js. Other than structure/array abstractions (like LLVM's), which largely only improve debugging, I can't think of important missing features that can't be fixed with compilers or extra APIs.

The only major objection remains lack of elegance (which is indeed largely a syntax/decoding argument). I guess browsers environments are doomed to be ugly and quirky.

[BrendanEich]

> That would be a bytecode-to-asm.js compiler. Hence, no difference besides distribution.

Your "That" referred to something in my sentence "No, asm.js on browsers that do not use AOT compilation is already faster than non-asm.js for the workloads of interest (compiled from C/C++, etc.)" -- but I have no idea what. Please use a noun. What "That" did you mean?

I was not talking about a bytecode-to-asm.js compiler. I said asm.js code (output of Emscripten, hand-coded -- whatever typechecks) runs faster in other browsers such as Chrome than non-asm functionally equivalent code, even without AOT compilation. But as the blog post shows, AOT in Firefox is even faster at startup (and see the link on "throughput" for other wins).

Missing features are not being added to JS for the sake of asm.js. I clearly wrote we are adding SIMD, int64, etc. for hand-coded JS users. Ecma TC39 is not only concerned with "compile to JS" use-cases, we look at apps, libraries, and compilers.

For some reason, at least twice now, when I've written X, you've read Y or !X. Not sure why, but I hope this message is clear, at least!

/be

[lucian1900]

> Please use a noun. What "That" did you mean?

If a hypothetical bytecode were designed, a compiler from this bytecode to asm.js would be just as fast in browsers without support for this bytecode (or for that matter asm.js) as asm.js is currently.

One would compile C/C++ to this bytecode and either ship it directly (to browsers that support it) or compile to asm.js and ship that (to browsers that don't support it).

This process I described is precisely how Dart works and while I don't particularly like Dart itself, I think its compilation/distribution mechanism is nice.

It's possible to do this later, after (and if) asm.js becomes popular. And it would even possible to eventually compile JS itself to this bytecode.

> But as the blog post shows, AOT in Firefox is even faster at startup (and see the link on "throughput" for other wins).

I am not immediately concerned with the merits of asm.js as implemented in Firefox at the moment.

> Missing features are not being added to JS for the sake of asm.js. I clearly wrote we are adding SIMD, int64, etc. for hand-coded JS users. Ecma TC39 is not only concerned with "compile to JS" use-cases, we look at apps, libraries, and compilers.

Sure, I guess. These features just seemed to me more important for asm.js than generic application JS (as opposed to, say, macros).

[BrendanEich]

SIMD is important to hand-coders, we get this (so does Dart, and sauce for the goose...).

> It's possible to do this later, after (and if) asm.js becomes popular

+1, and also when JS is more "done" (ES7 or 8; http://sweetjs.org/ + SIMD + value objects + minutiae is the nirvana.