How much work would it be to integrate this in to PS? I don't have the time to make the patch myself, but I will help as much as I can in any other way.<br><br>We have a reference implementation of the parsing and generating the source maps which is written in JS:<br>
<br><a href="https://github.com/mozilla/source-map">https://github.com/mozilla/source-map</a><br clear="all"><a href="https://github.com/mozilla/source-map/blob/master/test/test-source-map-generator.js">https://github.com/mozilla/source-map/blob/master/test/test-source-map-generator.js</a><br>
<br>_Nick_<br><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Daniel Gackle <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:danielgackle@gmail.com">danielgackle@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
This is great to hear! It's a feature I have wanted for a long time.<div><div></div><div class="h5"><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Nick Fitzgerald <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fitzgen@gmail.com" target="_blank">fitzgen@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I've been meaning to drop a line here for a while, but this seems as opportune as any other time. I'm currently interning at Mozilla and my project should make targeting JS easier whether from PS or eventually from CL. It requires some buy-in on the side of the compiler, but I think it is worth it.<br>
<br><a href="https://wiki.mozilla.org/DevTools/Features/SourceMap" target="_blank">https://wiki.mozilla.org/DevTools/Features/SourceMap</a><br clear="all"><font color="#888888"><br>_Nick_</font><div><div></div><div>
<br><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Daniel Gackle <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:danielgackle@gmail.com" target="_blank">danielgackle@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><div><div><span style="border-collapse:collapse">< It would also be nice to have the full-featured JS environments (V8,</span></div><div>
<span style="border-collapse:collapse">Rhino, SpiderMonkey) as another target for CL deployment. ></span></div><div><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><br></span></div>
</div><div><span style="border-collapse:collapse">I think this is going to become increasingly important as the JS</span></div><div><span style="border-collapse:collapse">implementations improve. The recent release of Clojurescript is an</span></div>
<div><span style="border-collapse:collapse">indicator.</span></div><div><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><br></span></div><div><span style="border-collapse:collapse">We've actually switched Skysheet to using PS server-side as well as</span></div>
<div><span style="border-collapse:collapse">client-side so we can deploy to V8 on the server. There are three</span></div><div><span style="border-collapse:collapse">reasons for this:</span></div>
<div><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><br></span></div><div><span style="border-collapse:collapse">1) it eliminates the impedance mismatch between our CL code and our PS</span></div>
<div><span style="border-collapse:collapse">code, which was a drag on development (example: JS's hash objects</span></div><div><span style="border-collapse:collapse">don't have a very good counterpart in CL; neither CL hashtables nor</span></div>
<div><span style="border-collapse:collapse">plists/alists are a great substitute);</span></div><div><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><br></span></div><div><span style="border-collapse:collapse">2) we get better performance from V8 than we do from SBCL. (That's for</span></div>
<div><span style="border-collapse:collapse">unoptimized CL. Optimized CL would do much better of course, but that</span></div><div><span style="border-collapse:collapse">would worsen the impedance mismatch described above;</span></div>
<div><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><br></span></div><div><span style="border-collapse:collapse">3) interoperability with JS gives some desired conveniences, like V8's</span></div>
<div><span style="border-collapse:collapse">fast JSON support and Node.js for non-blocking i/o.</span></div><div><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><br></span></div>
<div><span style="border-collapse:collapse">A full CL-in-JS would open the door to an all-CL system rather than an</span></div><div><span style="border-collapse:collapse">all-JS one. Either would be better than straddling the two. Would we</span></div>
<div><span style="border-collapse:collapse">switch? Hard to say.</span></div><div style="border-collapse:collapse"><br></div></font><div><div></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Vladimir Sedach <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:vsedach@gmail.com" target="_blank">vsedach@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Currently Parenscript uses some things from Common Lisp that aren't in<br>
Parenscript. The three approaches to make PS self-hosting are:<br>
<br>
1. Rewrite PS code in a DSL that can be compiled with Parenscript. For<br>
example, replace car/cdr/etc. with destructuring and templating macros<br>
that translate to car/cdr for CL and array access in JS. Then on the<br>
JS side you'd construct your code from arrays instead of conses. The<br>
only problematic thing is symbol representation.<br>
<br>
2. Implement the missing CL features as a run-time library (add a cons<br>
prototype with car/cdr methods).<br>
<br>
3. Make a Common Lisp implementation that runs in JavaScript.<br>
<br>
I think the last option is the most overall useful, and the most fun<br>
to do. Parenscript then would (along with an existing CL<br>
implementation) act as a "syslisp"/bootstrapping dialect and<br>
cross-compiler. Red Daly already has large parts of the needed CL<br>
runtime implemented in his PSOS project<br>
(<a href="https://github.com/gonzojive/paren-psos" target="_blank">https://github.com/gonzojive/paren-psos</a>).<br>
<br>
How useful would Parenscript be in the browser? My guess is not very.<br>
After all, it will just be a macro pre-processor over JavaScript's<br>
eval, and anything you can do with that you're better off doing with<br>
closures.<br>
<br>
OTOH having a full Common Lisp on the browser (*with* a working ASDF)<br>
would be pretty sweet. It would also be nice to have the full-featured<br>
JS environments (V8, Rhino, SpiderMonkey) as another target for CL<br>
deployment.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Vladimir<br>
</font><div><br>
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Anton Vodonosov <<a href="mailto:avodonosov@yandex.ru" target="_blank">avodonosov@yandex.ru</a>> wrote:<br>
</div><div><div></div><div>> Hello.<br>
><br>
> I am new in parenscript and only glanced through the documentation on the project page.<br>
><br>
> As I understand parenscript source is compiled to javascript using a CL implemented compiler.<br>
><br>
> It's interesting, how difficult it is to have the same compiler implemented on javascript (i.e. on parenscript itself).<br>
><br>
> As parenscript is a subset of CL, in theory it mitght be not difficult.<br>
><br>
> The goal - is to have a browser only Lisp implementation, that can work without hunchentoot. To include parenscript<br>
> scripts onto browser directly, redefine functions interactively and so on.<br>
><br>
> What do you think?<br>
><br>
> Best regards,<br>
> - Anton<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> parenscript-devel mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net" target="_blank">parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel</a><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
parenscript-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net" target="_blank">parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
parenscript-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net" target="_blank">parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
parenscript-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net" target="_blank">parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
parenscript-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net">parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>