Non-Browser javascript Implementations - Rhino
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: Buy Sildenafil (Kamagra) online without script, online pharmacy Sildenafil (Kamagra) no prescription, buy Sildenafil (Kamagra) in Salt Lake City, buy cheap Sildenafil (Kamagra) online now
Next: Cursor in a textarea
From: Jorge on 20 Apr 2010 06:34 On Apr 12, 9:12 am, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Rhino is a non-browser javascript implementation and it does not appear > in the FAQ resources under: > > Non-Browser javascript Implementations Nor SpiderMonkey, nor the v8 shell, nor the JavaScriptCore shell, nor way too many other things that should be in the resources faq but aren't. -- Jorge.
From: Garrett Smith on 19 Apr 2010 16:46 Dr J R Stockton wrote: > In comp.lang.javascript message <e885d7b6-5b34-4217-9291-2fb593c25b6b(a)30 > g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:20:43, Sean Kinsey > <okinsey(a)gmail.com> posted: >> On Apr 12, 9:12 am, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Rhino is a non-browser javascript implementation and it does not appear >>> in the FAQ resources under: >>> >>> Non-Browser javascript Implementations >>> >>> I think the link should be on the list: >>> <http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/> >>> -- >>> Garrett >>> comp.lang.javascript FAQ:http://jibbering.com/faq/ >> Why not use something along the lines of "Embeddable/console-based >> [run-time environments/Virtual Machines] for 'javascript'". >> I'm guessing the main point here is to list VM's available for use >> outside the browser right? > > ECMA-type script engines can be classed as follows > Used in Web browsers > Used in Windows Script Host or similar > Used in others. > Some can appear in more than one of those. > > A list of Standalone ECMAScript Implementations is what I had in mind. I know Rhino is a popular one. It is used in YUI Compressor, ShrinkSafe, JSDoc Toolkit, among others. However, why not add in a link to V8 an Spidermonkey? <http://code.google.com/p/v8/> <http://www.mozilla.org/js/spidermonkey/> But then if that is done, the list of "Other ECMAScript Implementations" separating the standalone implementations from the hodge-podge "other" makes sense. That list would include Rhino, DMD, Spidermonkey, V8. The link to FESI should be removed. It is an implementation of ECMAScript edition 1. -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
From: Asen Bozhilov on 23 Apr 2010 16:38 Garrett Smith wrote: > Launching theBESENIDE... > > alert(typeof Object); // undefined In which version you get that result? I use: 1.0.0.162 And I get expected result: alert(typeof Object); // function
From: Garrett Smith on 23 Apr 2010 04:10 Garrett Smith wrote: > Dr J R Stockton wrote: >> In comp.lang.javascript message <e885d7b6-5b34-4217-9291-2fb593c25b6b(a)30 >> g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:20:43, Sean Kinsey >> <okinsey(a)gmail.com> posted: >>> On Apr 12, 9:12 am, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [...] > However, why not add in a link to V8 an Spidermonkey? > > <http://code.google.com/p/v8/> > <http://www.mozilla.org/js/spidermonkey/> > > But then if that is done, the list of "Other ECMAScript Implementations" > separating the standalone implementations from the hodge-podge "other" > makes sense. That list would include Rhino, DMD, Spidermonkey, V8. > > The link to FESI should be removed. It is an implementation of > ECMAScript edition 1. The link to FESI has been removed. Should the proposed list of "standalone implementations" should not be under "online documentation". It's a stretch, but another category might be appropriate. I haven't thought of one yet. -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
From: Garrett Smith on 23 Apr 2010 18:44
Asen Bozhilov wrote: > Garrett Smith wrote: > >> Launching theBESENIDE... >> >> alert(typeof Object); // undefined > > In which version you get that result? I use: > > 1.0.0.162 > I got that in: 1.0.0.154 Other built-in and host objects are the same. alert(typeof Function); // undefined alert(typeof alert); // undefined > And I get expected result: > > alert(typeof Object); // function > So they fixed it. I didn't play with it much beyond my initial tinkering which indicated a pretty glaring flaw, right? I mean typeof Object === "undefined" should be obvious; it's a plain vanilla test case; nothing tricky about it. How much have you played with it? Have any formal tests been run on it? -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/ |