Hello. One, two, one, two. Hello? Can you hear me? Hello. One, two ...
one, two. Now it's very loud! Can you guys hear me? Yes.
Wow. I mean, thank you by the way to JSConf EU for having me here. It's an absolute privilege to be at the last JSConf EU of its time. Can you guys give it up for JSConf EU? I can't believe it. [Applause].
I'm a senior software engineer at Bloomberg in the UK in London, dare I say Europe? We're still clinging on. I used to work at the BBC as well. Are there BBC people? Here? Yes, wow! I've also been involved in sort of TC39, so I've been working on the proposal over the past year which allows you to get on board all of your promises, regardless of the state whether fulfilled or rejected, and you have control then to do what you want with them. On the Rust side, I've also been involved in Rust as well.
I actually started off by looking for a place where I could contribute to this. Nowhere existed, like no-one had built one in Rust before, at least two years ago, anyway. There was one single project called js.rs, and the maintainer abandoned it. It was six years old.
I tried to build it, and there were 650 errors. It was basically because he made it at a time when Rust wasn't 1.0 and so the syntax had changed and moved on, and it was faster to build one from scratch than it was to try and get this working. That's exactly what I did. I'm not an expert by the way in parsing, or writing compilers, or any of that. I mean, I even struggle to read CSS in the morning, so I'm not an expert in parsing source code, so I thought let's start from somewhere.
I knew I was on to something here that I had a good language, something to work with. There were a couple of reasons that I wanted to use Rust to build this engine. One was control. One of the things Rust says to you we're going to give you the control you can have plus all the safety.
And so I can utilise a sort of close to the metalness of Rust and do the things I need to do, and then the compile time means I don't fall over myself. It was quite fast, so it is built on top of LOVM which means the years of the LOVM compiler they've done, Rust can tap into that and make use of it.
Sometimes, you can get faster CodeGen which produces C. There's memory safety as well. Rust has an ownership system which is quite unique. Basically, if you were passing a value into a function, the function is now the owner of that value, so there can only be one owner to a value.
That means when Rust wants to get rid of data it can do so with 100 per cent confidence because nothing else is pointing to that thing. You don't have dangling pointers, or anything like that. Currency, I might want to make use of this at some point. Again, because of the ownership model, I won't have to worry too much about multiple threads, trying to access the same value, and then what I need to worry about data races. All of that is taken care of at compile time which means at run time, I'm not penalised on performance.
So, yes I thought it's a good start. Let's get going. So I started. About two years ago, I started, I made a Git Repo, an engine called Boa.
Someone asked me why I called that? An evil boa in a zoo in Australia. I thought I'm naming my engine after that. I'm going to start with a high-level view here. So the architecture that I'm going to go with for now is going to be a few things missing, for those of you who are familiar with compilers, but the view that I'm going to start with is taking some source code, and that can be from, say, a network, or in this case reading from a file, basically.
And these tokens, they're basically like groups of characters that are bunched together to have some sort of semantic meaning. In this case, we've got function as a tone, or fu, or the opening parenthesis here. We are going to send them on to the parser operation. These expressions are different.
Expressions are hold other for example s. If you've got the opening of a function, you've got function declaration. The block inside that function, we've got some variable declaration, so the variable declarations would be children to that function. That's generally the idea. Let's just step into that a little bit closer.
I'm going to take that line of JS here. I showed this to someone earlier, and they were like, "You should have used const!" Sorry, I forgot. I'm going to start with Let.
Imagine you're scanning this, so the thing that reads the file has done its job now and it's going to pass this through. The first thing we are sitting on is the Let. We will produce a token from that. The token in this case is our object.
We've got the value. We want to keep hold of the value.
That's useful. We want to make a category for the tone. In this case, it's a key word. The reason I know that it is a key word is because I took a look on the spec, grabbed key words and codified against that. So, when I take a string like let that's got no quotes at the beginning, I know it's going to be either an identifier, or maybe even a token, so what I start off by doing is checking off against my list of key words, and I know that this one is a key word.
Conf does the same thing but it doesn't exist as a key word so we assume it's an identifier. We are keeping track of the position. The compiler doesn't really need that per se, but it's good if you're debugging and you can output that there's a problem on this line, or if there is a token we're not expecting, we can say there was an issue here, and it's on this column, this line number. Punctuation gets its own category. Again with, we want to keep the value and where we are and so on.
So here we've got. Some punctuation, a string, and an identifier, and a key word. We're going to place this into an array, and then pass it on to our parser. This makes it easier for us to deal with when we're traversing through the source code.
If you want to look at Rust, don't worry about understanding the syntax or anything like that, but I make use of Rust pattern-matching. Think of Switch Case. It is similar but more powerful. The idea is that you can take a character, or anything, actually, and then the pattern-matching allows you to do some destructuring on that.
You can say is it this or this? You can do bindings which I don't have an example about here, or we can say is it a digit, or is it alphabetic? This this case, we're on let, so it is alphabetic, so we go into a state of trying to parse and an identifier. And then we take this, put it in a loop, and of through each character in our source code and you do the same thing.
With each character you land on, that's a state. It's a state machine going on. If you're in a quote, it's a state of parsing a string. If you're in a character, it's parsing an identifier and a key word, and so on.
I've got a demo. This is something I did earlier. I was going to do it live, but Paul Irish is around, so I just wanted to make sure that he's not going to get interference, or anything! This is a quick writing conf, equals JSConf. We will output some tones. Very similar to what I showed you earlier.
We have key words, an identifier, and our punctuation, et cetera. This is now ready to go. We're Aldershot Town done in this area.
With parsing, we're going to sort of take that array of tokens, and we are going to try to build a tree structure now. So we are going to start building expressions from these tokens. The way we do that is similar to how we were iterating for the tokens as well. With the characters, we had some pattern-matching going on.
We're going to do the same thing. This time, though, we're able to pattern-match on tokens.
Keep an eye on that. In this case here, we are sitting on top of an "if", and we know our next token should be an open parenthesis. I've made a utility function here called expect punc, expect to have a premises or error out at that point. We can then parse our condition. This is between the parenthesis, and we can make an expression there, and we can do the same thing with the "if" body, and that is the expression underneath.
"Next" there chemicals it if the token is "else", which is optional. We may or may not have angles. If we do, we parse that as well. After that, we've got three expressions: the condition, the body, and then potentially the else, and we add those expressions underneath the if "if" expression, so you can start to see the free structure we've got.
Don't worry about the syntax of this, but this is implemented using an enum. The expressions are what they call variants. Each variant can hold another expression. You get the recursive structure, and the if variant holds an expression which is a condition which is another expression that might hold other things. The if body, and we wrap the "else" in an option which basically means we may or may not have a value there.
It's basically a way of way of us checking to say is there angles? If not, we move on and we get a non-value. The box you can see as well, so these are like the types and the box is basically saying that these are going to live on the heap. And it will manage that for us. So, take a look at this.
I've added a bit more code now. We had a let const. I've added more around that. If we started with our function, we get a function declaration expression. And as we work our way down, we get a let const, and that generates is a "let" generation expression underneath the function, and the const expression is just a little, so that is basically saying it's a value that we don't need to evaluate, it's already there.
That is also a child of the let declaration. The reason for that is that you can declare variables without defining what they are. In this case, we are defining it as well.
So we go down to our "if", and we have our if expression which holds an operation, a condition, a then, and angles. As I said earlier, the else was wrapped in an option, and we didn't use else in this case so we just return as non. Then we go into our if body which is the block expression, and we have another let declaration, and that also has a concept underneath that as well. The last thing is the return which gives us the return expression.
So the source code that you see on the left is what would generate the tree we have on the right. Again, a demo, so, hope you can run this.
And then there we go. Yes. And so there is a lot more going on there, and that is because I can only cover one more on one slide, but there are more expressions. In this case, there's a block expression at the top, and that represents the global scope, and you've got the function declaration underneath. But you kind of get the idea.
A symbol is missing. PRs are welcome. But we've got null undefined, boolean string number, integer, object, and function. Some people wandering why we have integer if all numbers are 64, 64-bit floating points? If you're doing stuff around bit-wise operations, we need to convert them to a number, do the operation on that, and then convert it back into a floating point.
He did a great job on that. I have my value data which is a string, and I pass my string in, and I now have my value, which is great.
We need to put the value somewhere. So I started off by using hashmaps. The idea was that I had a naïve approach which was whenever we come across a function, create a hashmap. Anything inside that function, I will throw in there.
This is to get going. It got me surprisingly far. As you saw the tree earlier, every time I stepped on to a function declaration, I would step on to a hashmap. Every time I came across a let declaration, I would add the value straight in. Real engines do more than this, but if you want to get going, it was pretty effective.
You can see here, though, that quickly it start to fail, because we have our B here that is in same environment as the conf and the B should probably be removed once that block expression finishes. So I realised I do need to have more environments than just the one for function. Took a look at the spec.
The specification actually points out five of them, and it calls them records. I'm not going to read them out, but you kind of get the idea. And is to I then took the environment section of the spec and basically implemented that. It was not easy.
It was not easy at all. But basically, what I do now is I created function records, I created block scope records, global scope records, and even modular records, and then the idea is every time I made a new record, I would add metadata to add value, and I would give it a parent property as well, so that I could point to the record I made of previously and then you start to have a sort of chain, the scope chain, where we can do our look-ups.
If you go back to our tree, the idea is that I make a function declaration, and I make a function environment. I have a declaration, I add my value in there. Have a block expression, I make a declarative environment, add my value in there. So far, so good.
Return is interesting, because the Conf is not in the turn the current environment I've just made, so I have to make use of the patient property to do a lockup. In this case, I'm trying to find where const is. I'm saying can you give me the value for const? It doesn't find it. It gets it from the function declaration scope and gets it from there. This is basically the scope chain that you probably heard obviously people talk about.
You can actually put your code into various tools that show you the tree, so there's AST Explorer. I think it's astexplorer.com or dot net, and you can put your view in there and see how it would be expressed as an abstract stream. With all of this. Let's give this a try.
I'm going to console.log it out. It implements the console.log which prints the value given. There we go. And so we have JSConf EU. Thank you! [Applause].
It's pretty fast as well. Yes, there we go. Got it working. To begin with, I got small things working, then I slowly started adding some other stuff, so I think this week, you know, it can do let and comps, a bit better, arrow functions were easy to add.
Once you get the building blocks there, it becomes easier and easier to add more stuff. A couple of performance opportunities: so one is maybe don't parse everything. Most functions are declared. Don't end up evening being ... so it's not worth parsing every single thing you come across because that can slow things down.
Spider Monkey and V8 do lazy parsing and may not add it to the syntax free straightaway and make a note of it and parse it will have before it is ran and parse lazily. It will check through functions but not actually add them to the AST. That's one tip.
Don't parse functions that aren't going to be called. All the JS engines in use today already do this. Another opportunity is to make use of the concurrency in Rust, so I can actually break these tasks apart, have them run on separate threads and pass data between each etch other. Got a scanner, pass the tokens across into the parser, because a scanner doesn't need those values anymore, and it doesn't need to hold on to them.
I can go further than this. I can go further and have a work er reading the files into the parser.
This is something that script engines do today. It's called script-screaming. The new WebAssembly cider monkey does this. As the script is downloading, it can start running straightaway.
I know! I know! The Rust team and the WebAssembly working group have been working together for quite a while now to make Wasm really awesome especially via Rust, working on great tooling over the past few years. Why not take of those.
One of those tools is Wasm bind be and let's take that and use it with Boa, bring it into the browser, running JS. The way that works is pretty peaceful. You take WebAssembly, bring it on to a place where you want expose. Something like this, exposed as a ES6 module.
I thought let's add Wasm into that, build my package. It will generate WebAssembly, and I can use that. There are some advantages to this. It is quite fast. When the browser pulls it in, it can run it straightaway.
I can use it as though it's a JS module. It's actually Rust I'm importing there. It's not JS. I can pass it a string.
And I can run it. That's the Wasm attribute.
You put that on to be of the function of any function you want to expose in the JS world and it will build your package into a Wasm file and then export it. Like this. I'm going to build it. I'm doing Yarn serve because there's a WebAssembly plugin.
That's going to build that out. Take a look on the left. It's going to generate a package folder. It's pretty quick. I can make changes to Rust code and that are long-run, and the browser will reload.
Over time, it will get more challenging, but this is the most I can do right now. Hopefully, we get - we can return "hello", we can do plus JSConf, second function. Are you ready? Oh! Come on! [Applause]. That's what keeps me up. This is why I'm in the industry.
The takeaway is you can take the ... performance-sensitive parts of your application, build them in Rust, as and you only need to change those bits, not the whole application. The next time you're thinking of building a JS parse er like this one, or a game engine, it was super easy and worth doing. It's definitely worth thinking about. You can actually play with the demo as well.
It's on that GitHub repo. You can go with there and play it live. Also, there's the Wasm book, and people here will be talking about WebAssembly as well.