[go: up one dir, main page]

SlideShare a Scribd company logo
JSX
DeNA Co., Ltd.
 Kazuho Oku
What is JSX?




Apr 5 2012   Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved   2
kind of a skunk-works project I have been
         doing for the last week or two…
                (together with gfx)



Apr 5 2012     Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved   3
Existing problems with JavaScript

   low productivity
        requires skills to write fast and maintainable code
        esp. in medium to large-scale development
   slow
        esp. on iOS (without JIT)
   memory-consuming
        esp. on JavaScript runtimes with JIT support



Apr 5 2012          Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved   4
JSX is…

   a strictly-typed OO language
   convertible to JavaScript
        and runs faster than JavaScript on web browsers




Apr 5 2012         Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved   5
JSX as a programming language

   strictly-typed OO programming language
   syntax:
        class / function definition like Java
        function body is JavaScript
   strict types lead to higher productivity /
    better quality than JavaScript
        higher productivity / better quality than C / C++
         (JSX has GC, no pointers)

Apr 5 2012           Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved   6
JSX to JavaScript compiler

   generated code runs faster than JS
        by optimizing the generated code using type-info
        JSX is designed so that there would be no
         overhead when compiled to JavaScript
   interoperable with JavaScript
   generates source-map for debugging
        source-map is a technology that supports
         debugging of client-side code on web browsers
         written in languages other than JavaScript
Apr 5 2012         Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved   7
The goal of JSX

   run faster than JavaScript on browsers
   higher productivity than JavaScript
   applications developed using JSX will
    have higher quality than when using
    JavaScript




Apr 5 2012       Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved   8
Comparison: Google Web Toolkit

   write in Java / translate to JavaScript
   differences bet. Java and JS leads to…
        different behaviors between when run on Java
         and on JavaScript makes debugging is difficult
        the translation introduces speed / size overhead
        hard to use in conjunction with JS libraries
             cannot use existing Java code as well

   JSX has none of the problems listed
    above
Apr 5 2012             Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved   9
Comparison: Google Closure Compiler

   a JavaScript minifier
        can use type-annotations to optimize JS
        problem: type-annotations are fragile
             hard to write, impossible to maintain

   JSX does not have the problem
        strict types promise higher productivity and
         performance: all optimizations possible by Closure
         Compiler can be applied
             initial versions of JSX will generate fully type-annotated
              code and pass it to Closure Compiler 
Apr 5 2012              Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved   10
Comparison: Dart

   promoted by Google as an replacement
    of JavaScript
        optionally-typed OO language
   Problems:
        slower than JavaScript when converted to JS
        unlikely to be supported by web browsers other
         than Chrome (as a native language)
        unlikely to run at native performance
             optionally-typed languages usually require JIT support
              to run fast
Apr 5 2012             Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved   11
Comparison: ActionScript 3

   an extension of JavaScript with classes
    and optional types
   Problem:
        cannot be translated to JavaScript without big
         performance penalty
        unlikely to run at native performance
             optionally-typed languages usually require JIT support
              to run fast



Apr 5 2012             Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved   12
Sample code
   import "./foo"; // import foo.jsx to current scope
   import "./bar" into Bar; // refer to the classes as Bar.clazz

   class Fib {
     static function fib(n : number) : number {
       if (n < 2)
         return 1;
       else
         return fib(n - 1) + fib(n - 2);
     }
   }




Apr 5 2012                  Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved   13
Sample code (cont'd)
   class FizzBuzz {
     static function main(args : String[]) : number {
       for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
         if (i % 15 == 0)
           log "FizzBuzz";
         else if (i % 3 == 0)
           log "Fizz";
         else if (i % 5 == 0)
           log "Buzz";
         else
           log i;
       }
     }
   }


Apr 5 2012                  Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved   14
Design notes on JSX

    no global namespace
         namespaces exist for each source file
         classes in imported source files will be expanded the top-level namespace (or
          to the specified namespace)
    primitive types: void, null, boolean, int, number, String
         int: introduced for future usage
              on JS, additional overhead only for div and mod operations (by "| 0", etc.), which are rarely used

    functions and member functions:
         can be overloaded (internally uses name mangling)
              accessing the arguments object is slow in JS
         function references and member function references are first-class objects




Apr 5 2012                        Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved                              15
Design notes on JSX (cont'd)

    built-in log and assert statements
         no code will be emitted for release builds
    support for typed arrays
         will fallback to normal array if not supported by the platform
         primary target: to support games on HTML 5

    compiler is written in JavaScript
         so that it could be run on the web browser
              for faster development cycle
         will be ported to JSX once self-hosting becomes possible
              will be a good test code
              may use a preprocessor so that the compiler could be interpreted as both JS and JSX




Apr 5 2012                     Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved                  16

More Related Content

JSX

  • 1. JSX DeNA Co., Ltd. Kazuho Oku
  • 2. What is JSX? Apr 5 2012 Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved 2
  • 3. kind of a skunk-works project I have been doing for the last week or two… (together with gfx) Apr 5 2012 Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved 3
  • 4. Existing problems with JavaScript low productivity requires skills to write fast and maintainable code esp. in medium to large-scale development slow esp. on iOS (without JIT) memory-consuming esp. on JavaScript runtimes with JIT support Apr 5 2012 Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved 4
  • 5. JSX is… a strictly-typed OO language convertible to JavaScript and runs faster than JavaScript on web browsers Apr 5 2012 Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved 5
  • 6. JSX as a programming language strictly-typed OO programming language syntax: class / function definition like Java function body is JavaScript strict types lead to higher productivity / better quality than JavaScript higher productivity / better quality than C / C++ (JSX has GC, no pointers) Apr 5 2012 Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved 6
  • 7. JSX to JavaScript compiler generated code runs faster than JS by optimizing the generated code using type-info JSX is designed so that there would be no overhead when compiled to JavaScript interoperable with JavaScript generates source-map for debugging source-map is a technology that supports debugging of client-side code on web browsers written in languages other than JavaScript Apr 5 2012 Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved 7
  • 8. The goal of JSX run faster than JavaScript on browsers higher productivity than JavaScript applications developed using JSX will have higher quality than when using JavaScript Apr 5 2012 Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved 8
  • 9. Comparison: Google Web Toolkit write in Java / translate to JavaScript differences bet. Java and JS leads to… different behaviors between when run on Java and on JavaScript makes debugging is difficult the translation introduces speed / size overhead hard to use in conjunction with JS libraries cannot use existing Java code as well JSX has none of the problems listed above Apr 5 2012 Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved 9
  • 10. Comparison: Google Closure Compiler a JavaScript minifier can use type-annotations to optimize JS problem: type-annotations are fragile hard to write, impossible to maintain JSX does not have the problem strict types promise higher productivity and performance: all optimizations possible by Closure Compiler can be applied initial versions of JSX will generate fully type-annotated code and pass it to Closure Compiler  Apr 5 2012 Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved 10
  • 11. Comparison: Dart promoted by Google as an replacement of JavaScript optionally-typed OO language Problems: slower than JavaScript when converted to JS unlikely to be supported by web browsers other than Chrome (as a native language) unlikely to run at native performance optionally-typed languages usually require JIT support to run fast Apr 5 2012 Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved 11
  • 12. Comparison: ActionScript 3 an extension of JavaScript with classes and optional types Problem: cannot be translated to JavaScript without big performance penalty unlikely to run at native performance optionally-typed languages usually require JIT support to run fast Apr 5 2012 Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved 12
  • 13. Sample code import "./foo"; // import foo.jsx to current scope import "./bar" into Bar; // refer to the classes as Bar.clazz class Fib { static function fib(n : number) : number { if (n < 2) return 1; else return fib(n - 1) + fib(n - 2); } } Apr 5 2012 Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved 13
  • 14. Sample code (cont'd) class FizzBuzz { static function main(args : String[]) : number { for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) { if (i % 15 == 0) log "FizzBuzz"; else if (i % 3 == 0) log "Fizz"; else if (i % 5 == 0) log "Buzz"; else log i; } } } Apr 5 2012 Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved 14
  • 15. Design notes on JSX  no global namespace  namespaces exist for each source file  classes in imported source files will be expanded the top-level namespace (or to the specified namespace)  primitive types: void, null, boolean, int, number, String  int: introduced for future usage  on JS, additional overhead only for div and mod operations (by "| 0", etc.), which are rarely used  functions and member functions:  can be overloaded (internally uses name mangling)  accessing the arguments object is slow in JS  function references and member function references are first-class objects Apr 5 2012 Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved 15
  • 16. Design notes on JSX (cont'd)  built-in log and assert statements  no code will be emitted for release builds  support for typed arrays  will fallback to normal array if not supported by the platform  primary target: to support games on HTML 5  compiler is written in JavaScript  so that it could be run on the web browser  for faster development cycle  will be ported to JSX once self-hosting becomes possible  will be a good test code  may use a preprocessor so that the compiler could be interpreted as both JS and JSX Apr 5 2012 Copyright © 2012 DeNA Co., Ltd., All rights reserved 16