I'm trying to extend Monaco Editor to allow users to write in a hybrid of JavaScript and another language, using delimiters to separate them within the same file, similarly to how Markdown allows writing multiple languages using fenced code blocks.
The difference is that I want to keep all the other IDE features that Monaco has built in for JavaScript, such as linting (done via diagnostics), smart auto-completion, jump-to-definition, auto-formatting helpers, and every other IDE feature that comes with Monaco's built-in JavaScript mode. I'd like these features to still work within the JavaScript portion of the code that Monaco is editing, and be disabled for the sub-language portion.
My first attempt was to call setMonarchTokensProvider, passing in a modified version of TypeScript's tokenizer rules. Specifically, I was able to add the beginning-fence delimiter to the root rule and create a new rule for the sub-language in the same way the documentation for Monarch (Monaco's syntax highligher) describes, using #nextEmbedded. (For testing purposes, I've been hard-coding CSS as the embedded language.)
When I call setMonarchTokensProvider like this for the language "javascript", it completely ignores this syntax highlighting tokenizer, and colors the code-fences of CSS as invalid JavaScript, indicating that you cannot override the built-in JavaScript mode this way.
When I call setMonarchTokensProvider with a new language (e.g. "mylang") and set the editor to use that language, it provides correct syntax highlighting (!) for this CSS-in-JS hybrid language. But all other advanced features that were found in the JavaScript mode are no longer present. The editor didn't have any smart auto-completion for methods defined on classes in the same file, or any in-editor error-reporting for invalid syntax, or any of its trademark JavaScript IDE features.
So my next attempt was to modify the pre-bundled Monaco code's TypeScript definition to include my custom syntax highlighting rules. This correctly highlighted my CSS-in-JS code completely (!), when setting the language to "typescript", and left all the other features intact (!) including diagnostics reporting (live-validation and underlining of errors), auto-completion, all of it! (I didn't try it with "javascript" but it's safe to assume it probably works or is trivial to get it working, since JavaScript is actually implemented as a variant configuration of the TypeScript mode in Monaco.)
Unfortunately, it also considered the entire CSS portion of it, including the fence around it, to be invalid JavaScript code.
I know that this is theoretically doable, because within HTML mode, you can embed CSS or JS with full support for proper validation and auto-completion and every other IDE feature; basically, every sub-language in an HTML file works like it's in its own file: HTML features in the root of the file, CSS features within style tags, JS features within script tags.
But digging into the TypeScript plugin's implementation inside Monaco, it's not clear where to begin editing this, either as a user of Monaco the library, or by forking it and patching it up where necessary. I started at trying to modify the DiagnostcsAdapter [sic] and tracing where it's actually implemented, but I got stuck two function-calls deep, where it seems to push a promise of syntax validation that returns a value that's used later, but the implementation of getSyntacticDiagnostics just shells the work out to some other implementation that I can't find anywhere else in the repo, nor in the monaco-languages repo or the vscode repo.
I make the similar thing. My solution is to place non-JS code inside a block comment:
regularJsCode()
/*
[your-syntax-identifying-start-token]
place any syntax you want here
[your-syntax-identifying-end-token]
*/
regularJsCode()
Then you can process it with your tools, parsers, IDE extension etc. And the coolest part you can make VSCode to syntax-highlight it like you want so it won't seem like some hack.
This approach is preferrable because your JS file still remains a 100% valid JS file.
If you still don't want to put your syntax into comments, then you should create your own file extension like .jsx/.tsx. In practical, VSCode terms this means you need to create VSCode extension with language server and stuff. This is not so easy, but the documentation is good. You could assemble your own JS highlighting code inside your VSCode extension using language server: https://github.com/sourcegraph/javascript-typescript-langserver
According to the creator of Monaco:
Architecturally, you can do the following:
use monaco-editor-core directly
define a new language to the editor
fork monaco-typescript and change it to work with your newly defined langauge id. Then, modify the TS language host code to not pass the original models to TypeScript, but first run a preprocess which strips your custom language out of the text, and then only passes on valid TypeScript to the TS compiler. One idea is to replace each character that you remove with a space. This will leave all the position/offset computation work without any effort on your side.
Good luck!
Related
I've made a simple programming language and compiler using Flex and Yacc, and I want to be able to convert my code for use in the browser.
I've already taken a look at projects like Jison, but I don't think that would work for me as I'd then have to maintain two different codebases.
Looking around some more, I'm pretty sure compiling my compiler to WebAssembly and running that in the browser would be the solution. Only problem is that I'm not sure how to go about doing that. Can the Flex library that I pass when linking the lexer and the parser together (-lfl) also be compiled along with my compiler?
I really have no experience with WASM and I'm pretty new to Flex/Yacc too, so there may be some very obvious solution, but I can't seem to find anything.
If you want to take a look at my code: https://github.com/inobulles/aqua-compiler/tree/master/langs/amber
Thanks alot for your time!
There is nothing of much use in -lfl; you shouldn't need it in any real application.
If you don't define yywrap() in your flex file, then add
%option noyywrap
to your flex prologue, so that flex doesn't put a reference to yywrap into the generated code. If you do define yywrap then you already don't need -lfl, but you still might think about %option noyywrap so that you don't need the definition.
I don't know how WASM deals with stdio.h functions; presumably, your intent is to use some other mechanism to feed text into your lexer, but the generated code will still contain references to standard library I/O functions (as does the code generated by Bison).
We have project with both Java and Javascript code, so we cannot use Reformat code before commit option, because it breaks Javascript files style. But it is still very usefull for Java code.
We try to use Javascript Standard Style for both Eslint and IDEA Javacript Code Style configuration, but this is not enough because we cannot use JSX formatting rules (for break jsx attribute on new line, for example)
Is there way to format all Java and Javascript by one hot key?
And also do it before commit?
Is there a VSCode extension that shows data type of a variable (like if we hover above that variable)? Presumably by detecting the type of a variable by looking at its initialization, and maybe even follow subsequent re-assignments? I know that using Typescript will give me great tooling which will do what I am seeking, but I don't want to use Typescript.
No not really, that's the nature of dynamic programming. VS Code itself can sort of guess, but it's mostly based on frequent strings used within the file or directory.
The closest is JSDoc (which has more uses than just types, you should probably already be using this) and indirectly using Typescript in your plain .js files to help VS Code.
At the top of your files add this:
// #ts-check
https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/nodejs/working-with-javascript#_type-checking-javascript
Has anyone implemented John Resig's micro-templating in production code? In particular I'd like to know if embedding the templates with <script type="text/html"> has caused any problems.
A bit more information: here's the sort of thing I'm worried about:
My users are mostly in corporate environments - could an unusual proxy server mangle or strip out the templates
The embedded templates seem to fail W3C validation. What if, for instance, the next version of IE decides it doesn't like them?
I abandoned inlining templates through scripttags as my view layer would create redundant duplicate script templates. Instead I placed the templates back into the JavaScript as string:
var tpl = ''.concat(
'<div class="person">',
'<span class="name">${name}</span>',
'<span class="lastname">${lastName}</span>',
'</div>'
);
I used the string concat trick so I could make the template string readable. There are variations to the trick like an array join or simply additive concatenation. In any case, inline script templates works and works well, but in a php/jsp/asp view layer, chances are you will create redundant duplicate script templates unless you do even more work to avoid it.
Furthermore, these templates become rather complex the more logic you have to add to them, so I looked further and found mustache.js which imo. is far superior and keeps the logic (conditions and dynamic variable definitions) in the JavaScript scope.
Another option would be to retreive template strings through ajax, in which case you can put each template inside it's own file and simply grant it a .tpl extention. The only thing you have to worry about is the http request roundtrip, which should not take too long for small .tpl files and is imo. insignificant enough.
While I haven't used #jeresig's micro-templating, I did roll my own which uses <script type="text/html">. I've used it in a couple of (albeit basic) production sites without problems. The HTML5 spec itself refers to something similar (near the end of the section I've linked to). AFAIK the block only executes when the MIME type is a recognized script type, otherwise the block is just part of the document.
I have actually, and it works great. Though only for webkit powered browsers so can't vouch for others. But what problems are you expecting? The approach is simple and I can't think of how it might break.
If you're using jQuery I can recommend jQuery templates instead:
http://github.com/nje/jquery-tmpl
I think it's supposed to be introduced officially in jQuery 1.5
BTW. I think both Resigs script and jQuery templates relies on using innerHTML, so as long as that works in your browser you should be OK.
Using VS2008 and ASP.NET 3.5 (or VS 2010 / .NET 4.0?), how can I include a bit of dynamic ASP.NET server-side code in mostly-static JavaScript and CSS files?
I want to do this to avoid cloning entire JS or CSS files to vary just a small part of them multi-tenant sites. Later, I want to extend the solution to handle localization inside javascript/CSS, dynamic debugging/tracing support, and other cool things you can get by injecting stuff dynamically into JavaScript and CSS.
The hard part is that I don't want to lose all the cool things you get with static files, for example:
JS/CSS code coloring and intellisense
CSS-class "go to definition" support in the IDE
automatic HTTP caching headers based on date of underlying file
automatic compression by IIS
The server-side goodness of static files (e.g. headers/compression) can be faked via an HttpHandler, but retaining IDE goodness (intellisense/coloring/etc) has me stumped.
An ideal solution would meet the following requirements:
VS IDE provides JS/CSS intellisense and code coloring. Giving up server-code intellisense is OK since server code is usually simple in these files.
"go to defintion" still works for CSS classes (just like in static CSS files)
send HTTP caching headers, varying by modified date of the underlying file.
support HTTP compression like other static files
support <%= %> and <script runat=server> code blocks
URL paths (at least the ones that HTTP clients see) end with .JS or .CSS (not .ASPX). Optionally, I can use querystring or PathInfo to parameterize (e.g. choosing a locale), although in most cases I'll use vdirs for this. Caching should vary for different querystrings.
So far the best (hacky) solution I've come up with is this:
Switch the underlying CSS or JS files to be .ASPX files (e.g. foo.css.aspx or foo.js.aspx). Embed the underlying static content in a STYLE element (for CSS) or a SCRIPT element (for JS). This enables JS/CSS intellisense as well as allowing inline or runat=server code blocks.
Write an HttpHandler which:
looks at the URL and adds .aspx to know the right underlying ASPX to call
uses System.Net.HttpWebRequest to call that URL
strips out the containing STYLE or SCRIPT tags, leaving only the CSS or JS
adds the appropriate headers (caching, content type, etc.)
compresses the response if the client suports compression
Map *.CSS and *.JS to my handler.
(if IIS6) Ensure .JS and .CSS file extensions are mapped to ASP.NET
I'm already using a modified version of Darick_c's HttpCompression Module which handles almost all of above for me, so modifying it to support the solution above won't be too hard.
But my solution is hacky. I was wondering if anyone has a more lightweight approach for this problem which doesn't lose Visual Studio's static-file goodness.
I know I can also hack up a client-side-only solution where I split all JS and CSS into "vary" and "won't vary" files, but there's a performance and maintenance overhead to this kind of solution that I'd like to avoid. I really want a server-side solution here so I can maintain one file on the server, not N+1 files.
I've not tried VS10/.NET 4.0 yet, but I'm open to a Dev10/.net4 solution if that's the best way to make this scenario work.
Thanks!
I have handled a similar problem by having a master page output a dynamic generated JSON object in the footer of each page.
I needed to have my js popup login dialog box support localization. So using JSON.NET for serialization, I created a public key/value collection property of the master page that pages could access in order place key/values into such as phrase key/localized phrase pairs. The master page then renders a dynamic JSON object that holds these values so that static js files could reference these dynamic values.
For the js login box I have the masterpage set the localized values. This made sense because the masterpage also includes the login.js file.
I do commend you on your concern over the number of http requests being made from the client and the payload being returned. Too many people I know and work with overlook those easy optimizations. However, any time I run into the same issue you're having (which is actually quite often), I have found I've usually either taken a wrong turn somewhere or am trying to solve the problem the wrong way.
As far as your JS question goes, I think Frank Schwieterman in the comments above is correct. I'd be looking at ways to expose the dynamic parts of your JS through setters. A really basic example would be if you have want to display a customized welcome message to users on login. In your JS file, you can have a setMessage(message) method exposed. That method would then be called by the page including the script. As a result, you'd have something like:
<body onLoad="setMessage('Welcome' + <%= user.FirstName %>);">
This can obviously be expanded by passing objects or methods into the static JS file to allow you the functionality you desire.
In response to the CSS question, I think you can gain a lot from the approach Shawn Steward from the comments makes a good point. You can define certain static parts of your CSS in the base file and then redefine the parts you want to change in other files. As a result, you can then dictate the look of your website by which files you're including. Also, since you don't want to take the hit for extra http requests (keep in mind, if you set those files to be cached for a week, month, etc. it's a one time request), you can do something like combining the CSS files into a single file at compilation or runtime.
Something like the following links may be helpful in pointing you in the right direction:
http://geekswithblogs.net/rashid/archive/2007/07/25/Combine-Multiple-JavaScript-and-CSS-Files-and-Remove-Overheads.aspx
http://www.asp.net/learn/3.5-SP1/video-296.aspx?wwwaspnetrdirset=1
http://dimebrain.com/2008/04/resourceful-asp.html
By utilizing the combining at run or compile time you can gain the best of both world by allowing you to logically separate CSS and JS files, yet also gaining the reduction of payload and requests that comes with compressing and combining files.