Python or ActionScript 3.0

[lkcl]

On Sep 6, 3:19 pm, lkcl <luke.leigh... at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 16, 1:29 am, Douglas Alan <darkwate... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think the future of client-side browser programming is actuallyJavaScript, not ActionScript, though that future may morph into one
> > that mostly usesJavaScriptas a virtual machine. This is the approach
> > that Google Web Toolkit takes. It lets you write your client-side code
> > in Java, and that is then compiled intoJavaScript.
>
>  as does pyjamas.http://pyjs.org
>  this also compiles intojavascript.
>  the source language: python.

 oh - i forgot: there's skulpt as well.

 http://code.google.com/p/skulpt.

 skulpt aims to be a python interpreter (written in javascript) first,
with an aim to be a browser-based UI toolkit second.

 pyjamas is the other way round (because it's more useful that way).

 skulpt's current python compatibility, as a less mature project, is
not as good as pyjamas' "--strict" mode, where we have metaclasses and
a near-full implementation of type() etc.

 it's fair to say that the more "python-correct" you get, the more
dreadful the performance of the resultant javascript.  strict
typechecked prototypes (in python) a la lisp and a la compiled
languages would open the floodgates to keep the same performance as
the pyjamas -O option.

but - basically, both projects demonstrate that the features of each
language are at least interchangeable.  this comes as somethin of a
surprise to many people.  java on the other hand is dreadful.  the
typechecking _seriously_ impedes progress, as the pypy developers
found out and can tell you more about.

l.