Related articles |
---|
use LL(1) or LALR(1) for JavaScript SQL interpreter? petermichaux@gmail.com (Peter Michaux) (2006-11-11) |
Re: use LL(1) or LALR(1) for JavaScript SQL interpreter? englere_geo@yahoo.com (Eric) (2006-11-11) |
Re: use LL(1) or LALR(1) for JavaScript SQL interpreter? petermichaux@gmail.com (Peter Michaux) (2006-11-13) |
Re: use LL(1) or LALR(1) for JavaScript SQL interpreter? JustinBl@osiristrading.com (excalibur2000) (2006-11-15) |
Re: use LL(1) or LALR(1) for JavaScript SQL interpreter? englere_geo@yahoo.com (Eric) (2006-11-15) |
From: | "Peter Michaux" <petermichaux@gmail.com> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 13 Nov 2006 16:28:56 -0500 |
Organization: | Compilers Central |
References: | 06-11-05006-11-054 |
Keywords: | parse |
Posted-Date: | 13 Nov 2006 16:28:56 EST |
Eric wrote:
> Peter Michaux wrote:
>
> > My goal is to write an database management system (DBMS) in JavaScript
> > so that other JavaScript in a browser can manipulate a lot of data
> > easily using a small subset of SQL.
>
> This is a terribly bad idea.
It could very well be a terrible idea. It isn't mine :)
> Also, web browsers slow down to a crawl when you load too much data
> into them for a particular page.
Do you have an example that shows this slowness? I haven't experienced
this. I would like to see this in action to prove it is a bad idea.
> You'll also see a lot of errors if you really push the limits.
Which error messages?
> Why not keep the data on the server and query it from the browser?
It might not be my decision. I agree with you however.
> But the JavaScript should only have the purpose of sevicing the UI.
I'm finding that at times this is a grey area. Then convincing others
with big ideas that something is a bad idea is sometimes hard.
Thanks for the response.
Peter
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.