You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@couchdb.apache.org by Zachary Zolton <za...@gmail.com> on 2009/03/23 19:23:02 UTC
JavaScript 1.8 Features in SpiderMonkey (Please?)
Hi,
The functional features in JavaScript 1.8 could greatly aid developers
when writing map-reduce functions for views.
Does anyone oppose upping the language version? If so, I'd appreciate
hearing their reasons.
Thank you,
Zach
Re: JavaScript 1.8 Features in SpiderMonkey (Please?)
Posted by Mikeal Rogers <mi...@gmail.com>.
By JavaScript 1.8 I assume you mean Spidermonkey 1.8 and not the
latest trunk for Spidermonkey aka Tracemonkey which is version 1.9.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/SpiderMonkey/1.8
http://www.mozilla.org/js/spidermonkey/release-notes/
https://wiki.mozilla.org/JavaScript:TraceMonkey
http://ejohn.org/blog/tracemonkey/
Technically Spidermonkey 1.8 hasn't been released yet, but this is the
version that is included in the latest release of Firefox and an
official RC1 release of Spidermonkey 1.8 was pushed a few weeks back.
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.tech.js-engine/browse_thread/thread/59a70434de0a7d22#
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/js/js-1.8.0-rc1.tar.gz
I'll throw in a non-binding +1 to using Spidermonkey 1.8, the addition
of Array.reduce() is reason enough for me.
-Mikeal
On Mar 23, 2009, at March 23, 200911:23 AM, Zachary Zolton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The functional features in JavaScript 1.8 could greatly aid developers
> when writing map-reduce functions for views.
>
> Does anyone oppose upping the language version? If so, I'd appreciate
> hearing their reasons.
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Zach
Re: JavaScript 1.8 Features in SpiderMonkey (Please?)
Posted by Brian Mitchell <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 14:44, Mikeal Rogers <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> MacPorts is at 1.7
>
> http://spidermonkey.darwinports.com/
>
> I can't tell if apt is at 1.8 or 1.9
>
> http://packages.debian.org/sid/libmozjs1d
> http://packages.debian.org/sid/libnspr4-0d
>
> FreeBSD Ports is at 1.7
>
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/lang/spidermonkey/
I would imagine using anything but 1.7 would require inclusion of the
"vendorized" spidermonkey sources somehow. I'm not sure what the
policy is for that in an Apache project repository since it is under a
non Apache license.
Brian.
Re: JavaScript 1.8 Features in SpiderMonkey (Please?)
Posted by Mikeal Rogers <mi...@gmail.com>.
MacPorts is at 1.7
http://spidermonkey.darwinports.com/
I can't tell if apt is at 1.8 or 1.9
http://packages.debian.org/sid/libmozjs1d
http://packages.debian.org/sid/libnspr4-0d
FreeBSD Ports is at 1.7
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/lang/spidermonkey/
-Mikeal
On Mar 23, 2009, at March 23, 200911:34 AM, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Zachary Zolton
> <za...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The functional features in JavaScript 1.8 could greatly aid
>> developers
>> when writing map-reduce functions for views.
>>
>> Does anyone oppose upping the language version? If so, I'd appreciate
>> hearing their reasons.
>>
>
> I don't think it'd be a good idea to require until it hits general
> consumption (as in, shows up in package managers). Their build
> procedure is at best, 'interesting'. Also, there's nothing to keep you
> from linking couchjs against a newer version of the library. I haven't
> groked all of the API breakage but there was a report on the list
> awhile back that seemed to indicate that it only involved a minor
> patch.
>
> HTH,
> Paul Davis
>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Zach
>>
Re: JavaScript 1.8 Features in SpiderMonkey (Please?)
Posted by Mikeal Rogers <mi...@gmail.com>.
Spidermonkey is relatively simple to build;
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/SpiderMonkey_Build_Documentation
Paul is probably referring to the Firefox build process which I won't
attempt to defend.
-Mikeal
On Mar 23, 2009, at March 23, 200911:57 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On 23/03/2009 19:34, Paul Davis wrote:
>> I don't think it'd be a good idea to require until it hits general
>> consumption (as in, shows up in package managers). Their build
>> procedure is at best, 'interesting'. Also, there's nothing to keep
>> you
>> from linking couchjs against a newer version of the library. I
>> haven't
>> groked all of the API breakage but there was a report on the list
>> awhile back that seemed to indicate that it only involved a minor
>> patch.
>
> Can you specify what's bad about their build procedure? I seem to
> recall that a lot of work on that was done in the past few months,
> and if not, I think I know who's in charge of it, so I could ask
> them about it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dirkjan
Re: JavaScript 1.8 Features in SpiderMonkey (Please?)
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman <di...@ochtman.nl> wrote:
> On 23/03/2009 19:34, Paul Davis wrote:
>>
>> I don't think it'd be a good idea to require until it hits general
>> consumption (as in, shows up in package managers). Their build
>> procedure is at best, 'interesting'. Also, there's nothing to keep you
>> from linking couchjs against a newer version of the library. I haven't
>> groked all of the API breakage but there was a report on the list
>> awhile back that seemed to indicate that it only involved a minor
>> patch.
>
> Can you specify what's bad about their build procedure? I seem to recall
> that a lot of work on that was done in the past few months, and if not, I
> think I know who's in charge of it, so I could ask them about it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dirkjan
>
The new method is lots better than the old, but I'm still traumatized
by the 1.7 build. I think spidermonkey suffers from trying to be both
part of Firefox and an independent library.
And for reference, I mean traumatized as in, it took me a good half
hour to figure out how to build it. Then a couple hours of wasted work
to figure out that I hadn't built a threadsafe version because it
built a non-threadsafe (which changes the API) debug version by
default. I know that a *lot* of this has been addressed, but it's
still not quite a './configure && make && sudo make install" dummy
proof build which means that it would turn into a huge stumbling block
for lots of people wanting to use CouchDB.
HTH,
Paul Davis
Re: JavaScript 1.8 Features in SpiderMonkey (Please?)
Posted by Dirkjan Ochtman <di...@ochtman.nl>.
On 23/03/2009 19:34, Paul Davis wrote:
> I don't think it'd be a good idea to require until it hits general
> consumption (as in, shows up in package managers). Their build
> procedure is at best, 'interesting'. Also, there's nothing to keep you
> from linking couchjs against a newer version of the library. I haven't
> groked all of the API breakage but there was a report on the list
> awhile back that seemed to indicate that it only involved a minor
> patch.
Can you specify what's bad about their build procedure? I seem to recall
that a lot of work on that was done in the past few months, and if not,
I think I know who's in charge of it, so I could ask them about it.
Cheers,
Dirkjan
Re: JavaScript 1.8 Features in SpiderMonkey (Please?)
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Zachary Zolton
<za...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, let's see if I've correctly understood the commentary.
>
> Once Mozilla makes a proper release of SpiderMonkey 1.8 available, and
> I see it available in some popular* package management systems, I
> should feel free to attempt to make the switch and submit a patch for
> review.
>
There was a small patch on the ML a week or two ago talking about
linking CouchJS to spidermonkey tip or similar that was basically
three lines revolving around the branch callback being removed from
spidermonkey. If you search for that it should allow you to link
against it already.
> I'm still a bit fuzzy on which package management systems I'll need to wait for…
>
I can't point at any specific manager in particular. I'm guessing that
the community would just need to feel comfortable enough with the
requirement, ie a passing general consensus vote on the ML or similar.
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Mikeal Rogers <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That was against an early TraceMonkey build which is 1.9, not 1.8 . Firefox
>> 3 ships with 1.8 and generally uses less memory than FF2.5 so I would hope
>> this isn't the case.
>>
>> -Mikeal
>>
>> On Mar 23, 2009, at March 23, 200911:45 AM, Bradford Winfrey wrote:
>>
>>> If I recall, I believe Jan tried implementing it a while back to see if
>>> TraceMonkey sped things up any in regard to the views and (I believe) he
>>> found it was a lot heavier in terms of memory consumption. Something to
>>> watch for if it hasn't already been remedied (it likely has, it was in a
>>> rather early stage at that time, but still).
>>>
>>> Brad
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>
>>> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
>>> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 1:34:50 PM
>>> Subject: Re: JavaScript 1.8 Features in SpiderMonkey (Please?)
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Zachary Zolton
>>> <za...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The functional features in JavaScript 1.8 could greatly aid developers
>>>> when writing map-reduce functions for views.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone oppose upping the language version? If so, I'd appreciate
>>>> hearing their reasons.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think it'd be a good idea to require until it hits general
>>> consumption (as in, shows up in package managers). Their build
>>> procedure is at best, 'interesting'. Also, there's nothing to keep you
>>> from linking couchjs against a newer version of the library. I haven't
>>> groked all of the API breakage but there was a report on the list
>>> awhile back that seemed to indicate that it only involved a minor
>>> patch.
>>>
>>> HTH,
>>> Paul Davis
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>> Zach
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: JavaScript 1.8 Features in SpiderMonkey (Please?)
Posted by Zachary Zolton <za...@gmail.com>.
So, let's see if I've correctly understood the commentary.
Once Mozilla makes a proper release of SpiderMonkey 1.8 available, and
I see it available in some popular* package management systems, I
should feel free to attempt to make the switch and submit a patch for
review.
I'm still a bit fuzzy on which package management systems I'll need to wait for…
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Mikeal Rogers <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That was against an early TraceMonkey build which is 1.9, not 1.8 . Firefox
> 3 ships with 1.8 and generally uses less memory than FF2.5 so I would hope
> this isn't the case.
>
> -Mikeal
>
> On Mar 23, 2009, at March 23, 200911:45 AM, Bradford Winfrey wrote:
>
>> If I recall, I believe Jan tried implementing it a while back to see if
>> TraceMonkey sped things up any in regard to the views and (I believe) he
>> found it was a lot heavier in terms of memory consumption. Something to
>> watch for if it hasn't already been remedied (it likely has, it was in a
>> rather early stage at that time, but still).
>>
>> Brad
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>
>> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
>> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 1:34:50 PM
>> Subject: Re: JavaScript 1.8 Features in SpiderMonkey (Please?)
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Zachary Zolton
>> <za...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The functional features in JavaScript 1.8 could greatly aid developers
>>> when writing map-reduce functions for views.
>>>
>>> Does anyone oppose upping the language version? If so, I'd appreciate
>>> hearing their reasons.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think it'd be a good idea to require until it hits general
>> consumption (as in, shows up in package managers). Their build
>> procedure is at best, 'interesting'. Also, there's nothing to keep you
>> from linking couchjs against a newer version of the library. I haven't
>> groked all of the API breakage but there was a report on the list
>> awhile back that seemed to indicate that it only involved a minor
>> patch.
>>
>> HTH,
>> Paul Davis
>>
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Zach
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: JavaScript 1.8 Features in SpiderMonkey (Please?)
Posted by Mikeal Rogers <mi...@gmail.com>.
That was against an early TraceMonkey build which is 1.9, not 1.8 .
Firefox 3 ships with 1.8 and generally uses less memory than FF2.5 so
I would hope this isn't the case.
-Mikeal
On Mar 23, 2009, at March 23, 200911:45 AM, Bradford Winfrey wrote:
> If I recall, I believe Jan tried implementing it a while back to see
> if TraceMonkey sped things up any in regard to the views and (I
> believe) he found it was a lot heavier in terms of memory
> consumption. Something to watch for if it hasn't already been
> remedied (it likely has, it was in a rather early stage at that
> time, but still).
>
> Brad
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>
> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 1:34:50 PM
> Subject: Re: JavaScript 1.8 Features in SpiderMonkey (Please?)
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Zachary Zolton
> <za...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The functional features in JavaScript 1.8 could greatly aid
>> developers
>> when writing map-reduce functions for views.
>>
>> Does anyone oppose upping the language version? If so, I'd appreciate
>> hearing their reasons.
>>
>
> I don't think it'd be a good idea to require until it hits general
> consumption (as in, shows up in package managers). Their build
> procedure is at best, 'interesting'. Also, there's nothing to keep you
> from linking couchjs against a newer version of the library. I haven't
> groked all of the API breakage but there was a report on the list
> awhile back that seemed to indicate that it only involved a minor
> patch.
>
> HTH,
> Paul Davis
>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Zach
>>
>
>
>
Re: JavaScript 1.8 Features in SpiderMonkey (Please?)
Posted by Bradford Winfrey <br...@yahoo.com>.
If I recall, I believe Jan tried implementing it a while back to see if TraceMonkey sped things up any in regard to the views and (I believe) he found it was a lot heavier in terms of memory consumption. Something to watch for if it hasn't already been remedied (it likely has, it was in a rather early stage at that time, but still).
Brad
________________________________
From: Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 1:34:50 PM
Subject: Re: JavaScript 1.8 Features in SpiderMonkey (Please?)
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Zachary Zolton
<za...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The functional features in JavaScript 1.8 could greatly aid developers
> when writing map-reduce functions for views.
>
> Does anyone oppose upping the language version? If so, I'd appreciate
> hearing their reasons.
>
I don't think it'd be a good idea to require until it hits general
consumption (as in, shows up in package managers). Their build
procedure is at best, 'interesting'. Also, there's nothing to keep you
from linking couchjs against a newer version of the library. I haven't
groked all of the API breakage but there was a report on the list
awhile back that seemed to indicate that it only involved a minor
patch.
HTH,
Paul Davis
>
> Thank you,
>
> Zach
>
Re: JavaScript 1.8 Features in SpiderMonkey (Please?)
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Zachary Zolton
<za...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The functional features in JavaScript 1.8 could greatly aid developers
> when writing map-reduce functions for views.
>
> Does anyone oppose upping the language version? If so, I'd appreciate
> hearing their reasons.
>
I don't think it'd be a good idea to require until it hits general
consumption (as in, shows up in package managers). Their build
procedure is at best, 'interesting'. Also, there's nothing to keep you
from linking couchjs against a newer version of the library. I haven't
groked all of the API breakage but there was a report on the list
awhile back that seemed to indicate that it only involved a minor
patch.
HTH,
Paul Davis
>
> Thank you,
>
> Zach
>