[racket] Racket in a browser?

From: Shriram Krishnamurthi (sk at cs.brown.edu)
Date: Sun Apr 10 15:55:58 EDT 2011

> Does the current bytecode to JavaScript compiler cover the whole language?

No, we definitely have the "library problem".

> A direct Racket bytecode to JavaScript compiler ought to be
> faster/smaller/better etc.

I don't understand this.  "direct" = ?  How would it be more "direct"
than the current one?  You're making a comparative with at least two
undefined parts.

> One advantage with the LLVM solution is that one is sure that the semantics of
> the parts of Racket that are implemented in C will be preserved. I am thinking
> such things as the numerical tower, whose C implementation contains quite a few
> functions that are non-trivial to implement directly in JavaScript.

I don't know what the porting effort is to get Racket to LLVM.  Would
that affect things like tail-calls and continuations?  These are the
things that Danny has put a lot of effort into in the Racket
bytecode->JavaScript compiler.

Maybe there's a way of doing something complementary, using this to
obtain the missing primitives?


Posted on the users mailing list.