difference between ecmascript-net?

Dec 17, 2009 at 2:37 PM


it's all pure c#, really interpret js, and, without antlr

Dec 18, 2009 at 8:33 AM

We have also discovered this project. This is actually a port from the Java code, and almost does the same things as Jint. Though, if I had to tell someone the advantages of Jint, I would say security. With Jint you can set permissions based on CAS, and by default nobody can for instance call System.Directory.Delete(). You have a granular way to open restrictions.

I would also like to comment the statement "really interpret js". Do you think Jint doesn't interpret js ? It does ! What is your point of view ?

Finally we also aim at implementing ECMAScript 5. Don't know what is the plan for this project.


Dec 18, 2009 at 9:16 AM

about "really interpret js", it means no offensive, just because I saw the same statement on your project's home page. and both of it and your project are not codedom related.

Dec 21, 2009 at 6:59 PM

The key difference between Jint and ecmascript.net is that Jint is being actively developed, and Sebastien is active with the community.  Ecmascript.net appears to be abandoned, so I would anticipate that you're "on your own" if you have problems.

How strong is your need to use JavaScript from C#?  The only real alternative to Jint is Rhino, using the techniques that I describe here:  http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/EmbeddingJSCS.aspx.  (The disadvantage of my technique is that it really only works well on mono, which is why I'm keeping an eye on Jint.)

Dec 22, 2009 at 6:57 AM

We also handle generic types now (next release). For instance you can do:

var list = new System.Collections.Generic.List{System.Int32}();
var squares = list.ConvertAll{System.Double}( function (x) { return x*x; });

It's might not be interesting to execute standard JS, but for scripting your application it's cool IMHO.