3 ms·
If the new way forward allows everyone distribute unreadable binary instead of readable, or de-obfuscatable, JavaScript, I think this definitely bad for open so
by jgalt212 11y ago
If the new way forward allows everyone distribute unreadable binary instead of readable, or de-obfuscatable, JavaScript, I think this definitely bad for open source and bad for innovation which depends upon stuff like: "oh, now I see how that did that. I think I can apply that technique to something else".
Of course, people can release their js, python, java, et al that compiles down to WebAssembly, but because you are not forced too, I do not think most will.
- coldtea 11y ago>If the new way forward allows everyone distribute unreadable binary instead of readable, or de-obfuscatable, JavaScript, I think this definitely bad for open source What "open source"? Open Source is dead in web services, because everybody can just hide the source behind the server. Even with SPAs, you could have 90% of the actual functionality on the server side, behind REST APIs and the like.
- Spivak 11y agoSure, but you at least you have the ability to inspect the code which is running on your machine. A FOSS client to a proprietary service is still meaningful.
- mrec 11y agoHow is this any worse than minified Javascript? Without meaningful names or comments you're not much better off than you would be with WASM+disassembler.
- roel_v 11y agoIt's the difference between a 'java decompiler' and a 'c++ decompiler'. Which is significant enough for there to be a market for commercial 'java obfuscators', but not for 'c++ obfuscators'.