Talk:List of JavaScript engines
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of JavaScript engines article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
| A summary of this article appears in Javascript. |
2007 merge
I think this should be merged with the Javascript article, if it makes sense to do so. Look at ECMAScript engine - it is a simple redirect to ECMAScript. I suspect probably this means the List of ECMAScript engines and List of JavaScript engines should also be merged. 125.62.64.155 12:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is awfully close to copyvio, too. See the Mozilla page.--Inonit 14:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
2009 restart
Restarted in Summer 2009 for new JS engines in browsers. Digita (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- There's a lot of information here that's redundant with JavaScript, and the info that's not redundant could be condensed and merged with the main article. --Maian (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- KDE's frostbyte came out before squirrelfish 198.144.209.8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC).
Google Chrome in introduction?
It doesn't appear obvious to me that Chrome deserves an entire paragraph in the introductory section, discussing how its V8 engine is or isn't the fastest of its kind. It seems to me like the paragraph would fit better under the "JavaScript engines" section. Thoughts?
Also, the sentence "Later, however, Google Chrome won in the races of better performance" seemed especially ambiguous to me. At first glance it seems like nothing but a value judgment, ostensibly by a Chrome fanboy, purporting to establish his favorite browser as "the best." I'd like to remove it entirely, but thought I should get some other opinions first. In the meantime, I added a "clarify" tag. --Foolishgrunt (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- To me, this whole article is mostly redundant or should be merged with with JavaScript and ECMAScript#Dialects. The line between JavaScript and ECMAScript engines is very blurred, since most ECMAScript dialects claim conformance with JavaScript and have their unique engines. Opera, for example, emphasizes that it has a ECMAScript engine rather than a JavaScript engine. --Maian (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Opera new JS engine
Opera has a new Javascript engine in their latest beta. Should this new engine Carakan, be listed here? It is a native code generating JIT that currently can support generating code for x86 and x64. But plans are to support native arm code generation as well for their mobile platforms (meaning opera's javascript engine will blaze on any platform Opera is on). --198.108.192.50 (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
What about Microsoft?
Microsoft's JScript - used in Internet Explorer, Windows Scripting Host, IIS and probably elsewhere - deserves a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.56.128 (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- and now again: is ms here really at the right place? I mean, they have Jscript and Chakra is a JScript engine, or am I wrong? OK, it should be explained and mentioned, but it doesn't belong here! mabdul 20:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- JScript is JavaScript. For example, the original implementation in IE was a 100% faithful (bugs and all) reverse engineered version of Netscape's JavaScript. JScript adds some global helper objects that aren't in the standard, but so do other JavaScript implementations. But the language itself is identical. So how doesn't it fit here? 86.178.56.247 (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)