Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ruby and Java Running in JavaScript

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the fun-new-toys dept.

Programming 220

John Resig is reporting on his blog that a recent trip to Tokyo opened up some very interesting JavaScript projects to him that haven't met with widespread popularity outside of Japan yet. "One project, in particular, really caught my eye. It's called Orto and is an implementation of the Java Virtual Machine (JVM) in JavaScript. This means that you can take an existing Java application, compile it to bytecode, run it through Orto (which produces the JavaScript, and embed it in a web page. While it doesn't provide the full capabilities of most Java code it does provide enough to make for some interesting demos." In a separate post he also detailed how the HotRuby project is allowing a Ruby VM to run in a browser using JavaScript or even indirectly using ActionScript in Flash.

cancel ×

220 comments

Awesome! (4, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228366)

Finally, a way to combine the feature-rich capabilities of Javascript with the speed of Java!

Re:Awesome! (2, Interesting)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228820)

Finally, a way to combine the feature-rich capabilities of Javascript with the speed of Java!

Cynicism was my initial response as well, but reading TFA shows a pretty cool demo [accelart.jp] . The fact that they are able to convert Java's user input events, GUI, and multithreading to Javascript is pretty cool. Probably has no practical use, but still cool.

If nothing else it means that the next time (in about 3 minutes if today is a normal day) somebody gets Java and Javascript confused, I can say they really ARE "basically the same thing" now!

Re:Awesome! (5, Funny)

omeomi (675045) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229248)

If nothing else it means that the next time (in about 3 minutes if today is a normal day) somebody gets Java and Javascript confused, I can say they really ARE "basically the same thing" now!

Fantastic. Somebody's found a way to make the morons of the world slightly more correct without them even knowing it.

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23229502)

people who dont know the diff between javascript and java are morons?

Re:Awesome! (1)

WoodstockJeff (568111) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229650)

In actuality, I can think of several applet-type projects that suffer significant problems in Java, which I'd like to try to "cross-compile" to Javascript... One that we've been trying to get to work for a long time works just fine in every browser we have tested it on. Unless, of course, you try to run it from a page loaded by HTTPS! If it is, the success of it running depends entirely upon the browser used, AND whether or not it was previously run from the same page, loaded via a non-TLS connection.

Attempts to resolve the problem (with limited or no error messages given, it just doesn't work) point to several potential problems, and a number of "fixes"... None of which work in all instances, and most of which, at best, change which circumstances fail, or sometimes generate a more useful error message.

If it were possible to turn it into strictly Javascript, it should lose the HTTP/HTTPS dependencies. Not to mention the load time to start the JVM.

Re:Awesome! (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229468)


Finally, a way to combine the feature-rich capabilities of Javascript with the speed of Java!

You joke, but I'm sure it's the other way around. The myth that Java is slow persists to this day, though it hasn't been true for many years.

The ugly thing about this hack is going to be the slowness of javascript execution, especially when doing this bizzare translation. I'm all for replacing javascript with a less sucky language. But this doesn't seem like the solution.

Java running under Javascript... (-1, Troll)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228370)

Because neither one is slow enough on its own?

Re:Java running under Javascript... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23228390)

Still with the "Java is slow" comments. Jeez.

Re:Java running under Javascript... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23228446)

It's especially amusing when it comes from people who predominately use Python or Ruby.

Re:Java running under Javascript... (1, Informative)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228636)

The primary reason its okay for python to be slow, but not for java, is that python isn't a crippled version of C++ that runs at 1/10 the speed, whereas java is.

That, and the fact that you can rewrite the performance-critical portions of python code in C if you need to.

Re:Java running under Javascript... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23228964)

Saying that Java is a crippled version of C++ that runs at 1/10 the speed is idiotic and only displays your ignorance. You're just parroting what you've heard from other ignorant retards. Java has a ton of significant problems but people like you continuously bring up points that are either wrong or completely irrelevant. Based on your posts I doubt you understand much about Java or the JVM.

By the way, you can obviously rewrite critical portions of Java code in C as well... Being able to call out to C is not an excuse for the current Python and Ruby implementations being complete trash. There are lots of languages that provide a similar level of abstraction that have far better performance and a threading model that isn't a complete joke.

Re:Java running under Javascript... (1)

Instine (963303) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228890)

or GWT?

Re:Java running under Javascript... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23228898)

Python and Ruby have nice foreign function interfaces/or making C extensions for them is easy. Java makes it a pain (on purpose, Sun doesn't want anything that isn't portable across the JVMs) to write JNI stuff. So, when Python is too slow for a task, you write the part in C and be done with it. Try the same with Java and you will want to gouge your eyes. Fuck JNI.

That and the fact that Python and Ruby are a lot more high level languages than Java. Java is just a crippled C++ with garbage collection and running on top of a virtual machine. It's nothing exciting.

Re:Java running under Javascript... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23228738)

Java is still slow.

Re:Java running under Javascript... (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228652)

> Because neither one is slow enough on its own?

Yes, but this way you get the speed of Java, and the strongly typed, fun to develop world of Javascript.

Doing things the slow way (2, Insightful)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228378)

What this is, basically, is emulating the Java in Javascript, an interpreted language. I can't help but feel that anything written in this is going to be very slow, and I can't, personally, see why anybody would bother. Of course, I'd be very happy to be proven wrong!

Re:Doing things the slow way (2, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228422)

What this is, basically, is emulating the Java in Javascript, an interpreted language. I can't help but feel that anything written in this is going to be very slow, and I can't, personally, see why anybody would bother

I'm with you, I read the summary and almost choked on my coffee.

This is like writing a Cray emulator for your TI 99/4a -- I don't know what it buys you.

Of course, I'd be very happy to be proven wrong!

I'm sure some clever person will put out a demo showing something completely amazing, and I'd love to see it. For now, it sounds like "because we can" sorta stuff (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Cheers

Re:Doing things the slow way (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228488)

This is like writing a Cray emulator for your TI 99/4a -- I don't know what it buys you.


Hey, I used to have a TI 99/4A. Great little machine, back then!

Re:Doing things the slow way (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228568)

Hey, I used to have a TI 99/4A. Great little machine, back then!

I'm not disparaging the TI 99/4a, I have very fond memories of that machine.

But, let's face it, that's just as odd a scenario as running Java on a javascript interpreter. :-P

It's like ... making a scale model of a dump truck from a Yugo. Sure, it kinda mostly looks like a dump truck. But, it can't do any of the things you'd actually want a dump truck for. :-P

Cheers

Re:Doing things the slow way (1)

sanimalp (965638) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228632)

alright, go ahead, get them out of your system.. I know you have a couple more analogies in there..

Re:Doing things the slow way (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228680)

alright, go ahead, get them out of your system.. I know you have a couple more analogies in there..

Bah, give me enough monkeys and enough time, I'll give you all of the analogies you could ever want.

I've made the computer analogy, the car analogy, and now I've alluded to monkeys ... what more could you want? ;-)

Cheers

Re:Doing things the slow way (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229276)

This is like writing a Cray emulator for your TI 99/4a -- I don't know what it buys you.
Hey!!! I'm posting this from Firefox running under NetBSD running under a Cray emulator on a TI 99/4a, you insensitive clod!

Re:Doing things the slow way (5, Informative)

Dekortage (697532) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228466)

The article suggests that the speed was not bad. (The sample Tetris [accelart.jp] clone loaded very quickly for me.) And the article's commenters note that this runs on an iPhone. In other words, Orto could be a route to port Java apps to be iPhone aps.

Re:Doing things the slow way (5, Funny)

hanshotfirst (851936) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228544)

Anticipated application stack:

iPhone -> Orto -> Javascript -> Java -> C64 Emulator -> VIC-20 Emulator -> Zork I

Exciting New ways to be eaten by a grue!

Re:Doing things the slow way (2, Informative)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228608)

The game loaded faster than most Java apps do for me, but once it loaded the controls were laggy and the video was pretty choppy. Most of the time for me, the JVM takes a while to load but at least the app runs fairly smoothly once it does. I'd rather have that then a shorter load time on a laggy application.

Re:Doing things the slow way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23228984)

I was amazed to find that it runs almost OK in Firefox 2 on a 400MHz box. The controls are sluggish and there's a noticable delay when a new brick drops, but that's by orders of magnitude better than i expected.

Re:Doing things the slow way (3, Insightful)

evanbd (210358) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228772)

Tetris performed better on my Gameboy (an 8-bit, 4.2MHz x80 CPU with 8KB RAM) than this clone does on my 32-bit 1.4GHz Athlon. And it had sound. Tetris shouldn't load "quickly" it should load instantly.

This is a very clever hack, and I admire the work -- but it is in no way practical for anything. I find the idea of using it for "real work" apalling -- and I code in Java by choice!

Re:Doing things the slow way (-1, Troll)

Amouth (879122) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228968)

... and I code in Java by choice!
saddly that should invalidate anything else

but that aside.. i agree.. (not about the by choice)

Re:Doing things the slow way (2, Interesting)

evanbd (210358) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229126)

Why wouldn't I code in Java? For most things I code, I see about a 10-20% performance penalty vs C, plus a modest load time (that I don't care about usually). I also see a noticeably reduced development time; for me that's a trade worth making under most circumstances. Now, I'm not coding user interfaces, and I am paying attention to performance of my Java code (unlike many Java developers). I'm also emphatically not claiming it's a good environment for everything (but I'd say the same about any language / platform). For what I do, it does a good job of balancing speed and ease of development and a number of other things.

If you'd like to claim that Java is universally slow, I have a program spec you're welcome to implement in the language of your choice for comparison. I'll warn you, though, the last time someone implemented it in C++ it came out slower (though once I pointed out the subtle algorithmic difference between our implementations, the C++ won by 10-20%).

Re:Doing things the slow way (2, Insightful)

bytesex (112972) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229332)

Nah - the beef with java isn't that it's slow. Well, that too, but it's more in the interfacing; want to do something in C in between all your java - use the JNI if you dare ! Want to fire off a shell - see you thirty statements later ! Want to create a PDF ? Well, see, first we instantiate a worker-factory of this XML-class, and then we feed it through this parser-generator, and then we might end up with some PDF... on mondays. Want to stat a file, fork a process, set up a non-standard network communication, access shared memory ? Tough ! This java, man ! And it's in a world of its own. It's no miracle the java guys are always so evangelical - they're not *allowed* to see what's outside their world.

You must be a Java adept (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23229322)

There are people who love Java and those who hate it. You missed a chance to trash it, so you are not of a former variety :)

Re:Doing things the slow way (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228950)

Well, I always tell young programmers that the things that matter most are at the top and at the bottom of the stack of the abstractions you are using. The in between part is always negotiable and subject to clever alterations.

Tetris is not apt to use a great deal of java's vast libraries, so if you're smart about loading just the parts you need, when you need them, why shouldn't Java on Javascript Tetris be fairly close to plain old Javascript Tetris, with a modest constant time hit. What I'd like to see is a non-trivial application that uses more than a few dozen Java classes load and run in a reasonable amount of time. You're either donwloading a significant portion of J2SE, encoded as javascript, or you're loading optimized javascript for some stack of method calls which works wonderfully for a small app but makes the problem worse for a large one.

I've seen some mobile development platforms that essentially analyze an app and create custom deployments of themselves for resource constrained devices. It's clever, but I'm not sure it works in the "drive by user" world of the web.

Re:Doing things the slow way (1)

jtolds (413336) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228970)

The article suggests that the speed was not bad. (The sample Tetris [accelart.jp] clone loaded very quickly for me.) And the article's commenters note that this runs on an iPhone. In other words, Orto could be a route to port Java apps to be iPhone aps.

It is definitely playable on my OLPC, albeit a bit slowly. But Slashdot is just as slow with all its new Javascript stuff.

Re:Doing things the slow way (1)

omeomi (675045) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229364)

The article suggests that the speed was not bad. (The sample Tetris [accelart.jp] clone loaded very quickly for me.) And the article's commenters note that this runs on an iPhone. In other words, Orto could be a route to port Java apps to be iPhone aps.

I think the article was likely talking about web-based iPhone games, which presently is the only Apple-sanctioned way of playing a game on your iPhone. Unfortunately, the web-based games are pretty limited compared to what can be played on, say, a Jailbroken iPhone. Native iPhone applications aren't written in Javascript...I think the new SDK is based on Objective C, though I haven't actually done any iPhone development.

Re:Doing things the slow way (1)

doombringerltx (1109389) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228504)

They provide an example. They have a tetris game written in java then implemented in javascript. (I don't know if its in the article here. I first read about this somewhere else). But the controls are a little sluggish and the game was fairly simple, but over all it was really impressive for javascript. I can see plenty of uses for this. If you are a business you want to make your web site available and functional to as many people as people. Not everyone has an up to date java run time on their computer. If the site made use of a japplet it'd be possible to provide a javascript implementation of it as an alternitive for those without the java run time. It sounds like what they've come up with will make that easy and cost effective to do

Re:Doing things the slow way (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228782)

But the controls are a little sluggish and the game was fairly simple, but over all it was really impressive for javascript.
No, no it's not. [dnsalias.com]

Is anyone here clear on the actual amount of processing power necessary to run a game of Tetris? Hint: It's not a lot. Especially if you're not using a fancy blitter with alpha-transparencies and pipelined transforms.

Re:Doing things the slow way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23228644)

I'm not a huge expert or anything, but I can imagine people wanting to write in their preferred language instead of javascript. On the other hand, if it would be really beneficial to use these languages in a browser, can't people just work with browser developers to support these languages natively?

Re:Doing things the slow way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23228700)

You want an application, here you go:
JSP form validation.
Write Some semi-complex server-side validation of form entries being passed back in a java-bean. Run it through Orto, and voila, you have access to the same validation on the client too.
One piece of code to maintain so that you know both ends are validating the same way. Validation on the front end so that there should be fewer round trips to the server and back, but if someone turns off javascript (or worse, starts screwing with your code with greasemonkey or firebug) then you still have the server side sanity check to fall back on.

It's not sexy, but it's an issue I run into all the time.

Re:Doing things the slow way (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229012)

``What this is, basically, is emulating the Java in Javascript, an interpreted language. I can't help but feel that anything written in this is going to be very slow, and I can't, personally, see why anybody would bother. Of course, I'd be very happy to be proven wrong!''

Probably, it will be slow.

But, in general, just because something is interpreted doesn't mean it has to be slow. There are various ways to implement an interpreter, and interpreters can have either very fast start-up time or very fast execution time, as well as various places in between.

But... (5, Interesting)

Oxy the moron (770724) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228386)

Does it run Linux? ;)

In all seriousness, though... I'm struggling to see how this is truly beneficial. Aren't most pages already hopelessly clogged with mounds of JavaScript? Is it that difficult to expect a user to have a Java interpreter already installed when they visit the page such that having your Java "emulated" in JavsScript is the better solution?

Just seems like a solution needing a problem to me.

Re:But... (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228798)

It depends on how much you prefer writing Java to writing javascript.

Presumably the compiler/translator/whatchamahoosit can also smooth out the differences between various javascript platforms.

Re:But... (1)

Ai Olor-Wile (997427) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229240)

I, for one, would gladly call that problem "how long it takes a Java plug-in to load, and how unstable they are in Mozilla browsers." The Xetris sample posted elsewhere in these comments runs very quickly and with very little CPU usage, something which I cannot ever remember receiving from a browser plug-in from sun.java.com. In a similar stroke, I imagine it's probably nice in thin-client situations where the client machine doesn't have the system resources for a full JVM, also.

Re:But... (2, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229304)

I'm struggling to see how this is truly beneficial.


If you can run it under JavaScript, you can run it on an iPhone.

I believe that you're missing the point (1)

sleight (22003) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229500)

Previously, so-called RIA applications were limited to those with Flash and JavaScript expertise. These advances may open this field up further to Java and Ruby developers who don't know JavaScript. This puts less cognitive burden on the individual developer which, on the whole tends to be a good thing.

Re:But... (2, Insightful)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229816)

Don't you see? Javascript is available on every hardware platform! You don't need to have a separate Java binary package from Sun to run Java programs. You can use the portable javascript implementation in your browser! It makes sense.

Ruby and Java, and also Python (3, Informative)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228416)

Also worth mentioning that PyPy allows you to run Python as Javascript [codespeak.net] , inside a browser. Like all of these things, it isn't 100% mature, but pretty cool nonetheless.

Google Web Toolkit (4, Interesting)

mysqlrocks (783488) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228424)

While not exactly the same thing, the Google Web Toolkit [google.com] (GWT) lets you write your code in Java and then run it in the browser. The difference is that the GWT translates the Java into JavaScript instead of giving you a full JVM. I'm not sure what practical advantage having a full JVM gives you.

Re:Google Web Toolkit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23229206)

Actually, the GWT is quite a different thing, If I'm not mistaken. It's intended to simplify the construction of java based AJAX applications, where some bits run in the browser, and the rest on the server, and Interaction happens mostly by xmlhttprequests. I don't think you can get stand-alone applications with GWT, and even applications that just run in the browser and are loaded from a file appear unlikely, they'll always need a browser with javascript support and a webserver that can execute Java. Orto on the other hand doesn't bring any simplification to the browser<->Server communication, but the applet can theoretically run offline, and depending on how the application was designed, it's easy to convert it to a standalone (java) application.

Re:Google Web Toolkit (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229328)

I don't think you can get stand-alone applications with GWT, and even applications that just run in the browser and are loaded from a file appear unlikely, they'll always need a browser with javascript support and a webserver that can execute Java.

Actually no, you can build an application in Java with no client/server communications and have GWT generate the client javascript code and run it stand-alone or serve it as a standard web page. It really does generate (compile) a javascript version of the java code for the client.

Re:Google Web Toolkit (1)

quick2think (833211) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229310)

One big difference here is that the JavaScript created by the GWT Java->JavaScript translator is optimized. The optimized code is all that is sent to the browser. Imagine some well written, but verbose, Java code being sent to the browser, and then compiled. Sounds like a waste of time/resources to me. Interesting, I would like to see the debugger work too. If there is none, then it really is beneath what GWT already does.

Strange (4, Interesting)

graveyhead (210996) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228444)

Seems odd to use languages that weren't really designed to be embedded in a browser. One of the nice things about Javascript in the past couple of years has been the great DOM support. Add a library like JQuery [jquery.com] and you have full cross platform goodness and a sane way to write code. Getting Java or Ruby code to interact with the DOM seems like it would be a huge pain compared with JQuery.

Why does everyone hate Javascript so? If you're going of cut-n-paste examples from the web yes it looks like an ugly language. Check out how the OO stuff works, or some JQuery code, and you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Re:Strange (3, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228570)

I think that everybody just has memories from the Netscape 4 days, where every line had to be coded differently depending on which browser you were using. Things have matured a lot lately, and you can almost get by without writing any browser specific hacks. However, the history of Javascript has lead many people to dispise it.

Re:Strange (1)

emkman (467368) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229522)

Things have matured a lot lately, and you can almost get by without writing any browser specific hacks.
Umm kinda. Tons of browser specific Javascript (and CSS!!!) hacks are still needed to write an app that plays nice across all platforms. The only difference is that developers of libraries such as JQuery, Prototype, and ExtJS have done an excellent job of encapsulating all the hacks into a library with a consistent API for you to use. They give you normalized event handling, keycode input, DOM element lookup etc. However if you tried to fly solo and develop without one of these libraries, Javascript would still suck as much as it ever did. BTW, my company wrote a fairly large web app using ExtJS [extjs.com] and made extensive use of its templating system, giving a very snappy Ajax app. I highly recommend it.

Re:Strange (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229542)

The hacks still continue depending upon what you want to do. If you're trying to seriously manipulate your interface using JavaScript you're still going to find yourself having to write browser hacks. Even with IE7 I've still run into plenty of things that don't work correctly in it versus FireFox.

This doesn't make me hate JavaScript though... it just makes me hate browsers that don't work. If I tell you to update the contents of an object you should update it without me having to move the focus to that object to get you to repaint it. :-/

The *only* thing I've hated about JavaScript is that I've never found a good JavaScript environment / debugging method. Even with FireFox and various developer programs debugging JavaScript is still a hassle (and of course that still doesn't help you when you've got an IE specific issue).

Re:Strange (2, Insightful)

lcampagn (842601) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228804)

> Why does everyone hate Javascript so?

Javascript is inherently multithreaded and embedded in a highly asynchronous environment, het has no threading API whatsoever. To me, this is mind-boggling. Every AJAX project I've been involved in has had to build in ugly workarounds or just drop features to prevent race conditions.

Re:Strange (1)

xero314 (722674) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229288)

Javascript is inherently multithreaded and embedded in a highly asynchronous environment, het has no threading API whatsoever.
This is because there is no reason to create custom threads. Multi-threaded functionality can be handled in a safe way through event handling. Implementing a semaphore is pretty simple if you need such a thing, but creating true asynchronous applications is actually a better approach.

The Octoparrot of the programming world (4, Funny)

Hoplite3 (671379) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228528)

This just reminds me of the "octoparrot" from The Simpsons. "Braawk! Polly shouldn't be!"

Safe and Secure I'm Sure (1)

pdq332 (849982) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228534)

Congratulations! Sounds like a very secure platform. Maybe there's time to include it in IE8.

I just need to get this out of my system (5, Funny)

Daishiman (698845) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228536)

'Orto' means 'ass' in Spanish.

Re:I just need to get this out of my system (2, Funny)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228612)

'Orto' means 'ass' in Spanish.
Oh wow, initially I didn't understand the point of this project. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Re:I just need to get this out of my system (-1, Troll)

owlstead (636356) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228926)

daishi

Some one who rapes little boys on the weekends

Source:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=daishi [urbandictionary.com]

Re:I just need to get this out of my system (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228966)

Don't worry, I've already clicked the thumbs down button, it seems somebody was trolling there :)

Re:I just need to get this out of my system (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23229128)

Can I put my penis in your mom's orto?

Re:I just need to get this out of my system (2, Informative)

navarroj (907499) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229412)

No, it doesn't [rae2.es] .

Re:I just need to get this out of my system (2, Informative)

baka_toroi (1194359) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229470)

It does. Only (I believe) in Argentinian Spanish though, not in the rest of the Spanish speaking countries. http://www.elcastellano.org/miyara/dic_arg_esp.html [elcastellano.org] (Site in Spanish)

No Perl? (3, Informative)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228538)

Client side perl would kick ass. Then I could match my front end with the back.

Re:No Perl? (1)

Digi-John (692918) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228794)

Perl is so Web 1.0, though! Remember back in the day when all the Slashdot posters loved to talk about their awesome Perl skills? Kids these days use AJAX and such... back in my day we wrote web applications in COBOL and we were glad to have it!.

Re:No Perl? (1)

Instine (963303) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229266)

COBOL? You were lucky!

Re:No Perl? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23229054)

Client side perl would kick ass. Then I could match my front end with the back.
I think your front end has already met your back end.

Re:No Perl? (0, Troll)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229656)

Wow, then you could screw yourself with Perl code instead of just screwing anyone who actually tries to read the code later.

PerlScript (1)

gknoy (899301) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229692)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PerlScript [wikipedia.org]

Neat, in a way. I recall playing a very VERY small bit with this ~5ish years ago, I believe. Not sure how useful it is, but it still warms my perl-loving heart.

crazy japanese (2, Funny)

trybywrench (584843) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228576)

writing a java VM in javascript? *head asplodes*

that's pretty cool but man, talk about a daunting tedious task. I'd rather bail 600 acres with a weed wacker and twisty-ties.

Re:crazy japanese (1)

TheRagingTowel (724266) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229648)

I looked at the tetris .js files (just replace Xetris-en.html in Xetris-en.js in their demo tetris url), and I must say I don't think they wrote a JVM is javascript. It looks more likely they disassembled the bytecode and "transformed" it into javascript code. Neat idea.

ONE WORD (0, Troll)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228592)

One word - Slllllllllllllllloooooooooooooooooooooow!!!

Language stacks galore! (4, Funny)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228622)

Ok, so maybe we can run python in pypy in ironpython in java in javascript.

Now all we need to get is a C compiler to output python code. If someone can then write an x86 VM in python we could then run Linux in Firefox!

Re:Language stacks galore! (2, Funny)

mweather (1089505) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228866)

We could run Linux in Firefox in Linux in Firefox!

Re:Language stacks galore! (1)

omnipresentbob (858376) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229450)

in Windows! .... or not.

Re:Language stacks galore! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23228944)

The new version of javascript is going to be based on python. Things will be getting very interesting for python coders!

Haskell, too (1)

Monkius (3888) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228704)

Re:Haskell, too (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228952)

Prolog in Javascript [ioctl.org] is available too. I first ran across an earlier version of this in a compressed form as an entry to the 5k competition: show off what you can do with 5k for your entire website.

* Urk * (2, Funny)

Tarlus (1000874) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228732)

Anybody else twitch at the sight of that headline?

Re:* Urk * (1)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228884)

I know I twitched a little when I read the "Java in Javascript" part. A really neat hack, tho.

Thing is Internet Explorer has supported lots of languages - even those not meant for a web browser! - for writing full-featured client-server code. They're called viruses.

All what is need now (1)

quickbasicguru (886035) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228758)

All what is needed now is an implementation of Javascript in Java (and possibly have it be compiled).

As a side note... (2, Funny)

Decameron81 (628548) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228814)

As a side note: "orto" in argentina means ass. I don't think I'd want to run anything through it.

google Web Toolkit? (1)

mweather (1089505) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228850)

So how Orto different from Google's Web Toolkit? Does it accomplish it's goal without AJAX?

Naming (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 5 years ago | (#23228860)

Finally the name JavaScript makes sense

Wonderful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23228942)

Now all we have to do is compile that Javascript into bytecode with Rhino, and it will tear a hole in the fabric of space and time.

Why? (1)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229006)

Why the hell would you use a JVM in Javascript when there are Java plugins for every major browser anyway? The only good use I could think of is if you want Java to run on some user hostile DRMd machine that doesn't let you do Java but lets you do javascript.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23229172)

Why the hell would you use a JVM in Javascript when there are Java plugins for every major browser anyway?
Please show me the Java plugin for any browser whatsoever on x86_64. Or are you defining 64-bit platforms as not "major" enough?

Re:Why? (1)

mweather (1089505) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229274)

Adobe and Sun seem to have that opinion.

More important languages (1)

zxSpectrum (129457) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229020)

While Ruby and Java are nice and all, I give you Brainfuck and Ook! [virtuelvis.com] .

Bah (1)

Xogede (1064902) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229070)

Brainfuck [hevanet.com] has been available for JavaScript for years!

Number #1 app (2, Funny)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229220)

Clearly the top application of this project is me playing that Tetris game and telling my boss that it's research for my job.

This is just a prototype! (4, Funny)

Kryptikmo (1256514) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229258)

They don't know if it works properly yet - they're still waiting for it to finish running "Hello World"....

Silverlight's been doing this for over a year (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23229366)

DLR in Silverlight 1.1 and 2.0beta already has Ruby/Python/compiled Javascript and C# on the browser. F# for functional programming is coming soon.

Under their VM, it's 1000x faster than interp JS.

I know this will go under the "lalalalalalalalalalala I cant hear you lalallaallalal" camp, but someone needs to say it's already been done.

Re:Silverlight's been doing this for over a year (1)

PixelSlut (620954) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229644)

Yeah, but that still falls into the "extra software to install" category. You need to install Silverlight (or Moonlight on Linux or Mac) to get this to work. The interesting part of this Java and Ruby thing is that it runs directly in the browser. That said, I think the DLR approach is better and more interesting. It's actually kind of sad that Tamarin is duplicating all the effort of this when they could totally take the Mono VM right now and do a lot of this stuff. Mono's VM is actually -really- fast and very useful for exactly this purpose.

Ruby in Javascript Speed. (1)

Safiire Arrowny (596720) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229594)

The most interesting part in the last link is that the following process:

- Ruby code in tag sent to the server via XMLHttpRequest
- Code recieved by a Ruby1.9 Cgi program.
- Cgi script compiles the code with YARV to opcodes and sends it back formatted as JSON.
- Browser takes the Ruby opcodes and translates it to javascript with HotRuby and runs it.

..is somehow 5x faster in their example than running the same ruby script on Ruby1.8 as a shell script on the commandline. Their example is incredibly simple, but I am still surprised that it wasn't 5x slower.

In any case I can't wait to be able to have all my application code written in Ruby.

oh, goodie (1)

nguy (1207026) | more than 5 years ago | (#23229850)

That means it's as cumbersome to program in as Java and even slower than JavaScript. What more could you ask for?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...