js

> If compilation is explicit, it's not a JIT. You have machine code generation at run-time, you can then make arbitrary decisions for when to do the code generation. Explain how this is not a JavaScript JIT compiler when you run it in ECL: https://github.com/akapav/js/blob/master/js.lisp#L72 > That's why I said SBCL's LOAD and REPL (which decides between interpreting and compiling) is arguably JIT. SBCL does not really have an interpreter (it started out without any kind of interpreter at all), it only has a compiler. No wonder you misunderstood my point about SBCL. > that doesn't meet the bar for being a JIT anymore than a C program that distributes plugins as source and compiles them to load the .so is. Let's try to rephrase that a little bit: "that doesn't meet the bar for being a JIT anymore than a [web browser] program that distribut

There is also cl-javascript: http://github.com/akapav/js The advantage of doing a "language X to CL" translator is that it's going to be much simpler than doing it in another language (the number of features offered by CL is a huge superset of that available in any other language; the only exception is continuations), the result will be faster (the example Ruby translator is faster than Ruby, cl-javascript is faster than SpiderMonkey, etc, mostly due to SBCL being a reasonably good compiler), and you will have access to really good debugging tools (Clozure is really good at this - see http://openmcl.clozure.com/ccl-documentation.html#watched-ob... for example).