Andrew Low from IBM ported the Google V8 javascript engine to PowerPC

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/v8-dev/06ReYVfFgGA
https://github.com/andrewlow/v8ppc

_________________
BACK FOR THE FUTURE

http://www.betatesting.it/backforthefuture

Sam440ep Flex 800 Mhz 1 GB Ram + AmigaOS 4.1 Update 6
AmigaOne XE G3 800 Mhz - 640 MB Ram - Radeon 9200 SE + AmigaOS 4.1 Update 6

@samo79

interesting !

@samo79

What does this mean exactly?

Q!

"i am home"

@QuBe

More or less it means now we might be able to get JIT support in Javascript also in our current WebKit browser that runs on PowerPC

_________________
BACK FOR THE FUTURE

http://www.betatesting.it/backforthefuture

Sam440ep Flex 800 Mhz 1 GB Ram + AmigaOS 4.1 Update 6
AmigaOne XE G3 800 Mhz - 640 MB Ram - Radeon 9200 SE + AmigaOS 4.1 Update 6

@samo79

Revitalizing this old thread because it seems that the port of V8 to PowerPC is finally mainstream!

https://developer.ibm.com/opentech/2015/06/30/ppc-support-for-google-v8-goes-mainstream/

You may want to have a look at the speed increase in javascript execution if we could have it ported to our platform, see here what the people developing TenFourFox (firefox for OSX PPC based) are able to obtain
http://tenfourfox.blogspot.it/2015/06/mission-accomplished-ionpower-kicks.html

Is it Odyssey able to take advantage of this javascript engine?

Last edited by virgolamobile on 22-Jul-2015 at 01:54 PM.
Last edited by virgolamobile on 22-Jul-2015 at 01:36 PM.

@virgolamobile

Ask Fab or Kas1e. MorphOS and AmigaOS4.1 would both greatly benefit from a JIT javascript engine.

Quote:

virgolamobile wrote: @samo79 Revitalizing this old thread because it seems that the port of V8 to PowerPC is finally mainstream! https://developer.ibm.com/opentech/2015/06/30/ppc-support-for-google-v8-goes-mainstream/ You may want to have a look at the speed increase in javascript execution if we could have it ported to our platform, see here what the people developing TenFourFox (firefox for OSX PPC based) are able to obtain http://tenfourfox.blogspot.it/2015/06/3180-available-say-goodbye.html Is it Odyssey able to take advantage of this javascript engine?

_________________
I sold my SAM460ex lite... waiting for money to buy a Raspberry Pi... or a Classic A1000 with Buffee... or an A1222... and OS4.3 FE update 11

@PhantomInterrogative

So would Safari!

But Amiga JIT is more likely.

If I remember correctly, bigfoot was already working on a JIT for Odissey. No news since several months though.

Last edited by Leo on 22-Jul-2015 at 02:56 PM.

_________________
http://www.warpdesign.fr/

I really wish for this. Anyone tried Odyssey under AROS with and without JIT javascript? Big difference.

I'm really curious of how big the difference would be on the A1 XE since Odyssey is horribly slow on heavy websites. It would be great no matter what hardware though.

@hotrod

Quote:

hotrod wrote: I really wish for this. Anyone tried Odyssey under AROS with and without JIT javascript? Big difference. I'm really curious of how big the difference would be on the A1 XE since Odyssey is horribly slow on heavy websites. It would be great no matter what hardware though.

+1

Cool. Now our web habbits can be tracked even more efficiently.

Quote:

by toRus on 22-Jul-2015 16:27:50 Cool. Now our web habbits can be tracked even more efficiently.

_________________
____________________________
c64-2sids, A1000, A1200T-060@50(finally working!),A4000-CSMKIII
! My Master Miggies- Amiga 1000 & AmigaOne X1000 !
mancave-ramblings
X1000 I BELIEVE

Some news about the port of node.js and V8 Javascript engines to PowerPC big endian CPUs

Update on Node.js/v8 Community support for PPC, AIX, and zLinux

@All

While this is taking a while to reach us. Or indeed any browser on PPC. I had my own idea for a JS JIT. It would use a little overhead and some resources of what is already there. My idea is to convert JS to C or indeed C++ and then compile the code into a native executable and run it!

See, JS is very similar to C, using the same annoying semi-colons and such. So in essence it would be similar to PortablE. It would translate text from one language to another. Then compile it. And would have support for includes with support libs which would be native and likely need to hook into browser internals through an API.

Of course being able to compile JS directly to an executable would be better if such a compiler exists. Compiling to RAM and executing from there would be a logical choice. You of course would notice my idea requires a compiler to be installed which usually implies an SDK. A customised compiler optimised for use by the browser and included in its files would be best here.

Last edited by Hypex on 12-Sep-2016 at 03:05 PM.

@Hypex

What about security ? Wouldn't compiling it to C/C++ open up a whole can of worms (or snakes...:)) security wise ? I'm not into browser coding or anything like that but that's the first thought that came to mind...

_________________

José

@Jose

Quote:

Jose wrote: @Hypex What about security ? Wouldn't compiling it to C/C++ open up a whole can of worms (or snakes...:)) security wise ? I'm not into browser coding or anything like that but that's the first thought that came to mind...

Only some of the standard libraries and buggy code will generate buffer overrun-style security problems.

In the future there is a statically compiling supplement to JavaScript called WebAssembly. You can compile C/C++ code to WebAssembly more efficiently than to JavaScript because JS is a dynamically-typed scripting language while WebAssembly is a statically-typed bytecode.

If you're not familiar with the issues associated with dynamic typing, I can describe them in more detail in another thread.

@Jose

Well the code would have to be restricted. Libs would also need to be limited. And sandboxed as much as possible in a native application. Especially on AmigaOS where most apps can share the memory. But compiling any code, even in a JIT to native code, and running it on the host machine directly provides a risk.

@Hypex

And translating a dynamic language to a static one would achieve the correct behaviour?
you cannot map prototypal chains to c structs, nor add/remove properties at runtime.
Also, Javascript internals follow well defined standards. It's not IE 5 time where anyone could bolt a custom js-like implementation and call it a day.

Sorry for being direct. I imagine you are doing an amazing job anyway

@Samurai_Crow

Quote:

Samurai_Crow wrote: because JS is a dynamically-typed scripting language while WebAssembly is a statically-typed bytecode.

Meanwhile you can have a look at TypeScript

_________________
Proud Amigan since 1987
Owner of various Commodore and a SAM440ep\OS4.1FE
See them on http://retro.furinkan.org/

@Tellurium

Quote:

And translating a dynamic language to a static one would achieve the correct behaviour?

It is if you want an easy way to translate from script to native code. You just implement it in such a way that the dynamics can be retained. After all code is rather static as native JIT code so if that works so should another translation.

Quote:

Sorry for being direct. I imagine you are doing an amazing job anyway

Of making up ideas? At the end of the day we are talking about a script being translated into host native code. Which works by design on modern devices. So these JS standards can be followed and executed. I'm just suggesting an alternative way of going about it. Which doesn't involve any assembly language or machine code. But portable high level language.

Last edited by Hypex on 16-Sep-2016 at 04:34 PM.