From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.68.180.5 with SMTP id dk5mr23096726pbc.3.1436491944670; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 18:32:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.240.227 with SMTP id wd3mr59830obc.3.1436491944617; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 18:32:24 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!qs7no3262091igc.0!news-out.google.com!t2ni5754igk.0!nntp.google.com!i4no513204ige.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 18:32:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=174.28.156.122; posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC NNTP-Posting-Host: 174.28.156.122 References: User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <592bdded-e693-40d3-a78f-84f4270c8008@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: GNOGA v1.1 Released - Ada Cloud Desktop and Mobile Development From: Shark8 Injection-Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 01:32:24 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:26733 Date: 2015-07-09T18:32:24-07:00 List-Id: On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 7:07:31 AM UTC-6, David Botton wrote: >=20 > However there are time where it makes sense to have things handled on the= client side and if we ever have an llvm (unencumbered by GPL viruses) back= end we can push the Ada to the client side as well. For example, until then= something like the Ace code editor that I am using on the new IDE in Gnoga= which is written in JS is bound to Gnoga but fine controls are handled by = it on the client side and yes if was all Ada at this point could feel a lit= tle sluggish. Unfortunately until I have the time or someone else has the t= ime to revive dragoneggs or an alternative those parts will need to remain = in JS or language compiling to JS. (As a side note, if Ada.NET was not viru= sed, I'd probably pursue updating that as there is a compiler freely availa= ble to compile .NET to ASM.js shame, I wonder if Martin realized the devast= ation GPL has on runtimes to kill future open source work not just closed s= ource) Question: If there's a compiler taking .NET to ASM.js, then would the runti= me encumbrance (or anything really) stick with if you processed it? After a= ll, the output of that DOTNET-to-JS would be, at best, a "derivative work".= And *IF* the runtime is encumbered, would it be feasible to use the pragma= -restrictions to avoid it?