Non-Browser javascript Implementations - Rhino

[Garrett Smith]

Rhino is a non-browser javascript implementation and it does not appear
in the FAQ resources under:

Non-Browser javascript Implementations

I think the link should be on the list:
<http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/>

 

[Jorge]

Rhino is a non-browser javascript implementation and it does not appear
in the FAQ resources under:

Non-Browser javascript Implementations

I think the link should be on the list:
<http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/>

There are way too many things that do not appear in the JS resources
FAQ entry.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Rhino is a non-browser javascript implementation

There are no "javascript implementations"; that is based on a fantasy
of yours. There are implementations of _ECMAScript_ (or _ECMAScript_
implementations) instead.

However:

| Rhino is an open-source implementation of JavaScript written entirely
| in Java.

It is very important to write _JavaScript_ (as spelled) here because it
refers to Mozilla.org JavaScript, one particular implementation of
ECMAScript.

Further, where does it say that Rhino is "non-browser"?

| [Rhino] is typically embedded into Java applications to provide scripting
| to end users.

And there are browsers that use Rhino as scripting engine, in particular
ICEbrowser from ICEsoft Technologies:

and it does not appear in the FAQ resources under:

Non-Browser javascript Implementations

I think the link should be on the list:
<http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/>

Certainly yes, but under a different (more sensible) heading.


PointedEars

 

[AcidDragon]

But is JavaScript not just ECMAscript 262 with server side and client
side extensions, mainly around HTML handling?

Rhino is a non-browser javascript implementation

There are no "javascript implementations"; that is based on a fantasy
of yours.  There are implementations of _ECMAScript_ (or _ECMAScript_
implementations) instead.

However:

| Rhino is an open-source implementation of JavaScript written entirely
| in Java.

It is very important to write _JavaScript_ (as spelled) here because it
refers to Mozilla.org JavaScript, one particular implementation of
ECMAScript.

Further, where does it say that Rhino is "non-browser"?

| [Rhino] is typically embedded into Java applications to provide scripting
| to end users.

And there are browsers that use Rhino as scripting engine, in particular
ICEbrowser from ICEsoft Technologies:

and it does not appear in the FAQ resources under:

Non-Browser javascript Implementations

I think the link should be on the list:
<http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/>

Certainly yes, but under a different (more sensible) heading.

PointedEars

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

But is JavaScript not just ECMAscript 262 with server side and client
side extensions, mainly around HTML handling?

No.

Please learn to quote.


PointedEars

 

[Garrett Smith]

There are no "javascript implementations"; that is based on a fantasy
of yours.

Take that to the dumpster, or Dumpster. I don't want to get my adrenalin
flowing over that. Oops, I meant epinephrine.

[...]

Further, where does it say that Rhino is "non-browser"?

| [Rhino] is typically embedded into Java applications to provide scripting
| to end users.

That fact does not make Rhino a browser.

Rhino is used for other things such as JSDocToolkit, YUI Compressor, and
ShrinkSafe. It is not a browser.

Is your point of contention the word "Non-Browser"? If so, why is it bad
and what is a more appropriate alternative?

Certainly yes, but under a different (more sensible) heading.

How about:

Non-Browser ECMAScript Implementations
<http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/>

I don't see any problem with that.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Take that to the dumpster, or Dumpster. I don't want to get my adrenalin
flowing over that. Oops, I meant epinephrine.

Rhino is _not_ a "non-browser javascript implementation".

[...]

Further, where does it say that Rhino is "non-browser"?

| [Rhino] is typically embedded into Java applications to provide
| [scripting | to end users.

That fact does not make Rhino a browser.

And I did not say so. You want to learn to read.

Rhino is used for other things such as JSDocToolkit, YUI Compressor, and
ShrinkSafe. It is not a browser.

I did not say so. Learn to read.

Is your point of contention the word "Non-Browser"?

If so, why is it bad

Because it's wrong. Learn to read.

and what is a more appropriate alternative?

ECMAScript implementation. Learn to read.

How about:

Non-Browser ECMAScript Implementations
<http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/>

So close ... yet so far. It is _not_ "non-browser". Learn to read.

I don't see any problem with that.

I do, and had you read my posting, you would have, too.


PointedEars

 

[RobG]

Garrett Smith wrote: [...]
Further, where does it say that Rhino is "non-browser"?

| [Rhino] is typically embedded into Java applications to provide scripting
| to end users.

That fact does not make Rhino a browser.

Rhino is used for other things such as JSDocToolkit, YUI Compressor, and
ShrinkSafe. It is not a browser.

Thomas would rather nit-pick at the detail and be obnoxious than solve
the issue efficiently. If you don't get what he thinks he meant the
first time you read what he writes, he thinks you are a complete
idiot. However, if he misunderstands what you write, it's because you
are wrong, didn't explain correctly, or fully, or whatever.

He is intolerant, expect to be chided.

Is your point of contention the word "Non-Browser"? If so, why is it bad
and what is a more appropriate alternative?

It seems to me he thinks "non-browser" means not used in a browser (at
all I suppose). So if there is any browser that uses Rhino, it can't,
strictly, be called "non-browser". I guess you could call it a stand-
alone or modularised implementation that can be included in any Java
application, including a browser (which is more or less what you've
already written, I think most will get the idea).

Or you could define "non-browser" as available as a stand-alone module
that is not dependent on a browser. In that case, some "browser"
implementations might need to be re-classified as "non-browser". Do
you want to make this a definitional debate?

[...]> How about:

Non-Browser ECMAScript Implementations
<http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/>

I don't see any problem with that.

Perhaps the issue can be resolved by explaining what is meant by "non-
browser", e.g.

| Non-browser javascript Implementations

The following implementations are not dependent upon a browser.

| Developing Dashboard Widgets
| http://developer.apple.com/macosx/dashboard.html
| ...
|
Java applications (including browsers)
http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/

 

[nick]

It seems to me he thinks "non-browser" means not used in a browser (at
all I suppose). So if there is any browser that uses Rhino, it can't,
strictly,  be called "non-browser". I guess you could call it a stand-
alone or modularised implementation that can be included in any Java
application, including a browser (which is more or less what you've
already written, I think most will get the idea).

<snip>

Stand-alone was the first thing that came to my mind on hearing this
debate. Of course since some people here seem to have a bit of trouble
with making sensible inferences from things they read, you'd have to
qualify any terms you come up with to avoid the incessant
nitpicking...

"Browser-based" could be used to mean it was originally developed (AKA
'based') in the context of a browser, whether or not it is separable
from the browser or useful for other things, while non-browser-based
(or stand-alone IYP) can mean not originally developed in the context
of a web browser. As long as the terms are descriptive of what they
represent and are clearly defined, I see no reason no to use them (or
similar).

I'll cast my vote for:
"Browser-based javascript engines" / "Stand-alone javascript engines"

/2¢

 

[Garrett Smith]

<snip>
[...]
I'll cast my vote for:
"Browser-based javascript engines" / "Stand-alone javascript engines"

Where does Developing Dashboard Widgets go?

 

[Garrett Smith]

Garrett Smith wrote: [...]
Further, where does it say that Rhino is "non-browser"?
| [Rhino] is typically embedded into Java applications to provide scripting
| to end users.

That fact does not make Rhino a browser.

Rhino is used for other things such as JSDocToolkit, YUI Compressor, and
ShrinkSafe. It is not a browser.

Thomas would rather nit-pick at the detail and be obnoxious than solve
the issue efficiently. If you don't get what he thinks he meant the
first time you read what he writes, he thinks you are a complete
idiot. However, if he misunderstands what you write, it's because you
are wrong, didn't explain correctly, or fully, or whatever.

He is intolerant, expect to be chided.

Is your point of contention the word "Non-Browser"? If so, why is it bad
and what is a more appropriate alternative?

It seems to me he thinks "non-browser" means not used in a browser

We have:

ECMAScript

• 
  
  W3C DOM
  • 
    
    Browser Documentation
    • 
      
      Javascript Library Groups (Google Groups)
      • 
        
        "Non-Browser javascript Implementations".
        • 
          
          It could also very well be titled:
          "Other ECMAScript Implementations"
          
          
          (at

          all I suppose). So if there is any browser that uses Rhino, it can't,
          strictly, be called "non-browser".

          
          "it" is potentially ambiguous and although I know what you meant, it
          could be either:
          
          'So if there is any browser that uses Rhino, that browser
          can't,strictly, be called "non-browser"'
          
          - which is a true statement but totally pointless or it could mean:
          
          'So if there is any browser that uses Rhino, then Rhino can't,strictly,
          be called "non-browser"'
          
          - which is not a true statement.
          
          
          Rhino fits that category of non browser because it is an implementation
          of ECMAScript that is not a browser and not tied to a browser.
          
          Regardless, either of "Other" or "Non-browser" is fine by me. I find
          neither to be confusing in any way.
          
          [...]
          

          Perhaps the issue can be resolved by explaining what is meant by "non-
          browser", e.g.
          
          | Non-browser javascript Implementations
          
          The following implementations are not dependent upon a browser.

          
          I guess. Or could have a title:
          
          Other ECMAScript Implementations

 

[nick]

nick wrote:
...

Where does Developing Dashboard Widgets go?

The way I see it, Dashboard Widgets would be a "stand-alone javascript
engine" based on webkit, a "browser-based javascript engine."

Similarly, node.js would be a "stand-alone javascript engine" based on
V8, a "browser-based javascript engine."

That way you can have different flavors of the same ES implementation
under each category if you need to.

-- Nick

 

[RobG]

Where does Developing Dashboard Widgets go?

With the entry for SquirrelFish.

On reflection, the section seems a bit muddled (e.g. Whitebeam is not
an engine, it is a use of Mozilla's SpiderMonkey). If the intention is
to list some javascript engines and uses, perhaps that section should
be re-written to firstly link to details of the implementation, then
to some examples of its use, e.g.

WebKit SquirrelFish: http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/SquirrelFish
Used in the WebKit and Safari browsers, can also be used for
developing Dashboard Widgets
http://developer.apple.com/macosx/dashboard.html

Mozilla SpiderMonkey: http://www.mozilla.org/js/spidermonkey/
Used in Mozilla browsers and Whitebeam Apache Module
http://www.whitebeam.org/

Digital Mars DMDScript: http://www.digitalmars.com/dscript/
Stand-alone, open source implementation of ECMAScript.


and so on. Other engines not listed[1]:

1. Rhino - Mozilla
2. V8 - Google
3. KJS - KDE, Konqueror web browser
4. Narcissus - Mozilla (written in JavaScript, seems to be
dependent on SpiderMonkey)
5. Tamarin - formerly by Adobe, now Mozilla
6. ActionMonkey - Mozilla, combination of SpiderMonkey and Tamarin
7. Chakra - Microsoft, for Internet Explorer 9
8. Nitro - precursor to SquirrelFish

Or should the entry simply note that there are implementations that
aren't dependent on browsers and link to Wikipedia?


<FAQENTRY>

The link under the item:

Win32 Scripting, Using Scripting to Automate Windows
http://cwashington.netreach.net/

is no longer active, Win32Scripting has closed its doors. Either a new
link is required or the item should be removed.

</FAQENTRY>


1. Most of the list came from Wikipedia:
<URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript_engine >

 

[nick]

based on webkit, a "browser-based javascript engine."

^^^^^^

Sorry, I guess that should be SquirrelFish(?) although webkit may be
worth mentioning here too.

 

[RobG]

RobG wrote: [...]

It seems to me he thinks "non-browser" means not used in a browser

We have:

ECMAScript

• 
  
  W3C DOM
  • 
    
    Browser Documentation
    • 
      
      Javascript Library Groups (Google Groups)

• • • • 
        
        Not sure that section is useful. Prototype.js is just about dead, the
        jQuery forum has moved to a different site and there are a number of
        other "popular" libraries whose discussion forums aren't listed. Might
        be best to say "search for a relevant group". The phrase "or ask in
        clj" could be added if it is thought such requests will be answered
        civilly.
        
        If not, it will be counter-productive.
        
        

        "Non-Browser javascript Implementations".
        

        • 
          
          It could also very well be titled:
          "Other ECMAScript Implementations"

        • 
          
          Perhaps just a section on ECMAScript implementations and some uses,
          see my reply to your previous post.
          
          

          (at
          
          
          "it" is potentially ambiguous and although I know what you meant

          
          Oh dear, Thomas has gotten to you!
          
          [...]

          I guess. Or could have a title:
          
          Other ECMAScript Implementations

          
          Or just "ECMAScript implementations"

 

[Bwig Zomberi]

"Non-Browser javascript Implementations".

• 
  
  Can you simply say "JavaScript Engine for Java"?

 

[Garrett Smith]

RobG wrote:

[...]

Javascript Library Groups (Google Groups)

• 
  
  Not sure that section is useful. Prototype.js is just about dead, the
  jQuery forum has moved to a different site and there are a number of
  other "popular" libraries whose discussion forums aren't listed. Might
  be best to say "search for a relevant group".

• 
  
  As in:-
  
  | No javascript libraries are endorsed by this group. If you are looking
  | for help using a library, visit that library's discussion group
  | instead.
  
  
  And just remove the links found at:
  <http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#libraryResources>
  
  ?
  
  The phrase "or ask in

  clj" could be added if it is thought such requests will be answered
  civilly.

  
  I proposed quite some time ago something to the effect of: If you are
  interested in discussing the design of such libraries, c.l.js is the
  right place to do that.
  

  If not, it will be counter-productive.
  
  

  "Non-Browser javascript Implementations".
  

  • 
    
    It could also very well be titled:
    "Other ECMAScript Implementations"

  • 
    
    Perhaps just a section on ECMAScript implementations and some uses,
    see my reply to your previous post.

  • 
    
    I see it.
    
    What about splitting that section into two:
    
    | Other Environments
    | Developing Dashboard Widgets
    | <URL: http://developer.apple.com/macosx/dashboard.html>
    | Win32 Scripting, Using Scripting to Automate Windows
    | http://cwashington.netreach.net/
    | Whitebeam Apache Module - Server Side JavaScript in Apache;
    | http://www.whitebeam.org/
    |
    | Standalone ECMAScript Implementations
    | Rhino: an open-source implementation of JavaScript written in Java
    | <URL: http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/>
    | Digital Mars DMD Script, console and MS Active Script implementation
    | of ECMAScript
    | http://www.digitalmars.com/dscript/
    
    ?
    
    BTW - I have not used DMD script for "MS Active Script" and I don't see
    anything on the site about that.
    
    [...]
    

    [...]

    I guess. Or could have a title:
    
    Other ECMAScript Implementations

    
    Or just "ECMAScript implementations"

    
    But then it should seem to include browsers, which it doesn't. Browser
    documentation was covered in a previous list "Browser documentation".

 

[Garrett Smith]

"Non-Browser javascript Implementations".

• 
  
  Can you simply say "JavaScript Engine for Java"?

• 
  I am thinking that DMD script could, with Rhino, go into a separate
  category. Please see my response to RobG on this thread. Come to think
  of it, Spidermonkey and V8 go there, too.
  
  <http://www.mozilla.org/js/spidermonkey/>
  <http://code.google.com/p/v8/>

 

[Bwig Zomberi]

"Non-Browser javascript Implementations".

• 
  
  Can you simply say "JavaScript Engine for Java"?

• 
  I am thinking that DMD script could, with Rhino, go into a separate
  category. Please see my response to RobG on this thread. Come to think
  of it, Spidermonkey and V8 go there, too.
  
  <http://www.mozilla.org/js/spidermonkey/>
  <http://code.google.com/p/v8/>

• 
  
  Correction: This would not be useful - "JavaScript Engine for Java" Only
  one candidate.
  
  You could have "JavaScript Engines Used In Browsers" and another one for
  "Other/Modular JavaScript Engines".
  
  Will you include BESEN?
  http://besen.sourceforge.net/

 

[Sean Kinsey]

Rhino is a non-browser javascript implementation and it does not appear
in the FAQ resources under:

Non-Browser javascript Implementations

I think the link should be on the list:
<http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/>

Why not use something along the lines of "Embeddable/console-based
[run-time environments/Virtual Machines] for 'javascript'".
I'm guessing the main point here is to list VM's available for use
outside the browser right?