Warp wrote:
>   Being a JavaScript interpreter, it doesn't have too much choice than to
> support FP, does it?-)

If the FP code failed silently, and most javascript didn't use FP, then most 
javascript wouldn't fail. :-)

Exactly the same as if your CPU didn't support FP, but your text editor 
didn't use FP, your text editor wouldn't fail.

But yes, you're right, you certainly want your javascript interpreter to 
support FP, because it wouldn't be correct if it didn't. It would just 
accidentally fail to encounter the bug in some cases.

>   (Speaking of it, I noticed from Thunderbird's source code, that rather
> enormous amounts of it are actually implemented in JavaScript. I suppose
> its flexibility makes it a great tool for such an application.)

My experience is that once one has an embedded interpreter in a program, one 
tends to move more and more of the program into that embedded interpreter. 
That's one of the beauties of languages like LISP and FORTH, where the 
entire environment is one big embedded interpreter.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message