25 ms·
You really think closed source Oracle is going to make applets better? People don't like applets cause the experience sucks, the tooling generally lacks, and th
by jjm 11y ago
You really think closed source Oracle is going to make applets better? People don't like applets cause the experience sucks, the tooling generally lacks, and the libraries are old.
You say that webdev is Applet 2.0? ok sure, at least it's open and moving instead of EOL'd [1] and the experience is better else wouldn't we all still be using Applets...
[1] http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2443810/oracle-signals-the-end-of-java-applet-support-for-browsers http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2443810/oracle-signals-the-en...
- icedchai 11y agoOracle isn't. Sun dropped the ball. My point is we could've embedded JVM in the browser "correctly" instead of reinventing the wheel with another byte code format.
- CyberDildonics 11y agowebasm is not a bytecode format
- Sanddancer 11y agoYes, it's an IR. It still has all of the issues a bytecode format has, and none of the size advantages.
- renlo 11y agoDo you have a source that Webasm's IR won't be as compact as Java bytecode?
- thesz 11y agoCannot find PDF for Slim Binaries paper by Franz, so I cite it from memory. They used syntax trees of program as a distribution format, compressed these trees with LZW variant and executed using simple JIT compiler (basically, tree automata over program trees). The size of Slim Binaries was smaller than JAR files for comparable Java programs. I don't remember exact percentage reduction, it was about 20-40, I believe.
- CyberDildonics 11y agoIt is a binary AST and is explicitly made to be both compact and fast to parse. Not all intermediate representations are bytecode.
- pjmlp 11y agoNo it is Applet 5.0. Applet 2.0 was Flash, followed by Applet 3.0 aka Silverlight, followed by Applet 4.0 aka ecmspriten/asm.js.