Comment by Test0129
3 years ago
This really isn't fair. Just because it doesn't faithfully implement whatever standard Javascript is on doesn't mean it isn't an interpreter. All an interpreter is is something that executes a script directly rather than requiring compilation. It is a defacto interpreter for a subset of javascript. Nothing more, nothing less. The title could be more clear, however.
esprehn didn't say it isn't an interpreter. They're saying it is an interpreter and what it's interpreting isn't (all of) JS. That's also what you're saying, so you're agreeing with esprehn.
Edit: You misunderstood baobabKoodaa in the same way. Nobody is arguing about what constitutes an interpreter, except you. The question is what language is being interpreted.
Before accusing someone of pedantry, it would first be good not to completely misread them.
There's a huge difference between an interpreter for "JavaScript" and an interpreter for a "subset of JavaScript".
Making a pedantic argument on what constitutes an interpreter is silly. The title is bad. It is an interpreter. I'll continue to eat downvotes on this because of the pedantry of HN.
I didn't downvote, but I don't think esprehn is being unfair. Their comment is very informative. They didn't argue that what was implemented is not an interpreter, they did explain why it's not a JavaScript interpreter and not even an interpreter for a subset of JavaScript. It's just a special purpose interpreter suitable for YouTube's code that cannot be re-used for any code that uses the subset that it seems to implement.
It's not pedantry (or I'm pedantic). It's a reaction to the title that can lead people to believe that a complete JavaScript interpreter has been written in less than a thousand lines of Python. This reaction is perfectly understandable.
Technically, it’s only the pedantry of a subset of HN.
1 reply →
> Making a pedantic argument on what constitutes an interpreter is silly. The title is bad. It is an interpreter.
It's not a pedantic argument. Based on the title I thought that somebody wrote something akin to V8 in 800 lines of Python. After reading the comments I realized those 800 lines just interpret a particular JavaScript function written by Youtube. Those things are different. Pointing out the fact that they are different is not pedantry. The title is misleading and the comments pointing that out are helpful.
I evaluated it with my Pedantic Interpreter which only results in the `pedantic` token.
my vote is meaningless and i am sorry about that. but just wanted to let you know that what you said made sense. do not let people get to you.
most of us know that a thousand or so lines of code is not a full JavaScript interpreter and cannot be the real thing.
there is no argument or conversation to have about it.