At that point, we are venturing into LISP territory where the line between mini-language and library is truly thin (and sometimes non-existant like in the CL loop macro).
My standard: Can a common JS interpreter (say firefox) execute the code without modifications?
Check out parenscript. http://common-lisp.net/project/parenscript/ It is the only non js way of coding js that ever made sense to me. I saw Vladmir speak at an event and he got js and lisp.
I have looked through some of the code for parenscript and although I'm not a lisp expert I could grok what it was doing. I could also see how I could write my own macros if I put my mind to it. One huge advantage of compiling to js is that it makes obfuscation and compression a lot easier (this is true for GWT, objective-j, pyjamas, and parenscript).
Comments
At that point, we are venturing into LISP territory where the line between mini-language and library is truly thin (and sometimes non-existant like in the CL loop macro).
My standard: Can a common JS interpreter (say firefox) execute the code without modifications?
If that is true, then said "thing" is a library.
Check out parenscript. http://common-lisp.net/project/parenscript/ It is the only non js way of coding js that ever made sense to me. I saw Vladmir speak at an event and he got js and lisp.
I have looked through some of the code for parenscript and although I'm not a lisp expert I could grok what it was doing. I could also see how I could write my own macros if I put my mind to it. One huge advantage of compiling to js is that it makes obfuscation and compression a lot easier (this is true for GWT, objective-j, pyjamas, and parenscript).
"LISP territory where the line between mini-language and library is truly thin"
Which demonstrates how successful Brandon Eich was when he set out to make Javascript a Lisp-like language.