[Mono-list] Re: JavaScript and Mono

[Steve Newman]

At 4:56 PM +0100 1/9/03, Paolo Molaro wrote:
>On 01/09/03 Simon Waite wrote:
>> That sounds good, I've no problem with LGPL, but I think the final desision
>> rests with miguel(wrt mono) and ultimatly the previous owner (I'm sorry I
>
>Steve Newman is not the 'previous owner' :-)
>He's the author and has final say on his code (by changing the license
>in the sources).

I'd be quite happy to relicense as LGPL; in fact I would prefer LGPL to X11.  But frankly I'm willing to go either way.  Whichever license will get more people working with/on the code.


>I'll note that the javascript support needs several components
>and the components may use different licenses, as long as they can be
>linked together. Ultimately the author of the component decides the
>license. Of course having a single license would result in less
>questions on the list, I guess:-)
>As I understand it, currently the status of the projects is basically
>(I'm using 'done' as in pretty good shape):
>
>		janet		JScript
>Parser          done		done
>Execution	C# (working?)	node interpreter (status?)
>Basic runtime   done		done
>Helper libs	done?		done?
>Vsa integration none?		done?
>CodeDom integr. none?		none?
>Test suite      none?		?
>
>Both are missing Reflection.Emit support.
>Please, whoever knows better the status, change the table and post an
>update.
>Once it's known what is missing for the complete solution and what the two
>projects can reuse from each other the authors may have a better idea of
>what component of the complete solution may need a license change.

This table is correct for janet, with three comments:

* As you suggest, much of the code is in "pretty good shape", but none of it is completely "done".

* Only (most of) ECMAScript 3 is implemented, none of the JScript extensions.  (Although, I have implemented a fair amount of runtime support for JavaScript code to use native CLR objects.  This is strictly an aspect of the runtime; there is no CLR-related support in the compiler yet.)

* A few significant features of ECMAScript 3 are still missing, such as regular expressions and "eval".  ("eval" would be trivial, except that it introduces some special rules for identifier binding in the evaluated code.)

* janet does have something of a test suite -- one 750 line JavaScript file that tries to at least touch every language feature that's been implemented so far.

-- Steve