couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Zachary Zolton <zachary.zol...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: JavaScript 1.8 Features in SpiderMonkey (Please?)
Date Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:55:18 GMT
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 <mikeal.rogers@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 <paul.joseph.davis@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
>> <zachary.zolton@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 from linking couchjs against a newer version of the library.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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message