Enforcing strict separation of JS code and Smalltalk code

> Hey guys,
>
> I'm thinking about enforcing strict separation of inlined JS code. The
> reason is that most of the JS code (in Amber codebase too) relies on the
> Compiler output, and it shouldn't.
>
> As soon as we open the door and allow developers to access temps vars,
> etc. from the method context, the compiler output becomes more or less
> part of Amber's API, and it all becomes very brittle.
>
> To avoid such situations, I'm thinking about something quite radical:
> only allow JS code in JS-only methods.
>
> A method would contain either Smalltalk code of JavaScript code.
>
> It would look like the following:
>
> jsBodyMethod: aString
>      <return aString>
>
> stBodyMethod: aString
>      ^ aString
>
> In other words, inlined JS would be forbidden from smalltalk methods,
> and smalltalk code would be forbidden from JavaScript methods.
>
> Any thought/complain about that?

> Nicolas Petton wrote:
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> I'm thinking about enforcing strict separation of inlined JS code. The
>> reason is that most of the JS code (in Amber codebase too) relies on the
>> Compiler output, and it shouldn't.
>>
>> As soon as we open the door and allow developers to access temps vars,
>> etc. from the method context, the compiler output becomes more or less
>> part of Amber's API, and it all becomes very brittle.
>>
>> To avoid such situations, I'm thinking about something quite radical:
>> only allow JS code in JS-only methods.
>>
>> A method would contain either Smalltalk code of JavaScript code.
>>
>> It would look like the following:
>>
>> jsBodyMethod: aString
>>      <return aString>
>>
>> stBodyMethod: aString
>>      ^ aString
>>
>> In other words, inlined JS would be forbidden from smalltalk methods,
>> and smalltalk code would be forbidden from JavaScript methods.
>>
>> Any thought/complain about that?
>
> This is the simplest solution, but one will have hard time to optimize
> some shortcuts, since every one must be put into method of its own. But
> the core of the idea is fine.
>
> I would propose to allow JS-only blocks as well:
>
> [ :x :y | <jsUsing(x).asWellAs(y)> ]
>
> This way, one can include well-placed pieces of JS-code into ST-method,
> but they will still be separated.
>
>> Cheers,
>> Nico
>
> Herby
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "amber-lang" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>