Jxcore support

[listepo]

Add support https://github.com/jxcore/jxcore

[ljharb]

I'll leave this open as a feature request, but it's pretty unlikely this will be added - it has incredibly low usage, and you're the first person to ever ask for it.

[listepo]

@ljharb thank you!

[ktrzeciaknubisa]

We cannot really measure the usage level of JXcore, nor Node.JS in that matter. Yes, the latter was born earlier. But JXcore features and benefits should not be neglected at all.

We believe, that things will change in a near future and JXcore will get it's popularity, which surely deserves.

you're the first person to ever ask for it.

Someone already asked for the opposite: nvm for JXCore.

Once the time will come for nvm to add JXcore support as well - we'll be glad to offer our help if needed :)

[ljharb]

If that happens, I'll certainly try to add support for it in nvm - i did the same for io.js when large support was demonstrated.

[Ben007]

Personally I don't see a reason why nvm is needed for Jxcore.

First is first; It has binaries and single line script installation for almost everywhere. http://jxcore.com/downloads/

Second: Once a new version of Jxcore is out, there is no reason to use a previous one. It's on BETA yet.

Once there is a stable release, this might change.

[srfrnk]

+1

[gasolin]

+1, with nvm support I could quickly switch and evaluate if my code is compatible with different JS engine(which JSCore provide SpiderMonkey support)

[PCouaillier]

+1 for nvm support for improving the way that we could easy test our app with different engine!

[creationix]

@ljharb I think JXCore is starting to gain a little more popularity. How much maintenance overhead would it be to add? If it's pretty minimal, I'd say it's worth it. We now have a bit of experience with node forks thanks to io.js.

[ljharb]

@creationix I've still seen no evidence of that (while no amount of +1s would be sufficient, and this is not an invitation to others to pile on, 4-5 isn't very many)

As for how much work to add - the only way it would be somewhat trivial is if jxcore provides the exact same release format as both node and io.js - ie, the same style of manifest of versions, the same support for source code tar.gz's as well as binaries for various architectures, etc. Any deviation from what node, or io.js, has, would be a good amount of work to adapt to.

Right now my time is much better spent getting io.js release candidates (and thus future node release candidates) installable via nvm, so they can be tested on travis-ci prior to release.

[creationix]

@ljharb sounds good. I'll ask the JXCore people if they want to emulate the structure to make it easier for nvm.

And thanks again for all you do working on nvm!

[gr0uch]

+1

Support for SpiderMonkey engine and mobile architectures is nice.

[stylemistake]

+1

It provides a transparent multithreading throughout the whole API, which is awesome!

[dominictarr]

+1 though jxcore is a little bit more complicated because it has modes - you can install it with spidermonkey enabled, or with v8. But ultimately, this is a very good thing for the node community (portability - to android and ios!) as well as spidermonkey's support for asm.js which means potentially much greater performance if your program uses that.

[ljharb]

Closing this, since development on JXCore has been discontinued.