I'm using Rhino on the JVM.
Imagine writing Java code, without having to type classnames all the time and you have a rough approximation of what its like.
(And yes, you can import arbitrary Java bits into Rhino. It is "freaking sweet")
Imagine writing Java code, without having to type classnames all the time and you have a rough approximation of what its like.
(And yes, you can import arbitrary Java bits into Rhino. It is "freaking sweet")
According to one benchmark ( http://ejohn.org/apps/speed/ ), Rhino is generally several orders of magnitude slower than Spidermonkey and Tamarin. Which probably means that it is also orders of magnitude slower than Python, Perl and Ruby.
Since JavaScript was suggested as an alternative to Python to act as a reasonable substitute for C++ and Java for performance reasons, suggesting a JavaScript implementation that seems to be dramatically slower than even Python seems nonsensical.
While JavaScript is a lovely language, and I'm all for it being used more on the server-side, Rhino only solves the lack of libraries problem when compared to Python...it does not solve the performance/memory problem of using Python at Google scale.
Unless, of course, things have changed dramatically since any of the benchmarks I found were run.
The other thing is that it allowed my team to rewrite pieces into Java as needed without it looking dramatically different.