3 ms·

I've implemented the stack-machine validation rules, and they're very similar to the postorder AST validation rules. In some areas, they're actually simpler, be

by sunfish 10y ago

I've implemented the stack-machine validation rules, and they're very similar to the postorder AST validation rules. In some areas, they're actually simpler, because the stack-machine rules accept roughly a superset of the AST rules, so there are fewer constraints to enforce. The stack-machine rules were indeed added late, and it's reasonable to ask whether they might have been improved if there had been more time to iterate. It's also reasonable to ask whether a simple register-machine design with a compression layer on top would have been a better overall design. However, code size is important for wasm. Smaller code size means less to download between a user clicking a link and viewing content. Networks have gotten faster on average, but bandwidth still matters in many contexts.

lisivka 10y ago
It also great for obfuscation. PS. I am talking about problem of trust, which this binary format creates. Here, in Linux, we are solving problem of trust using distributions, maintainers, signed packages, signed repositories, releases. It's why I will trust binary packages from my distribution but will not trust webasm binaries.
- sunfish 10y ago
  Instead of having everything go through central trusted authorities, as Linux distros do, wasm (as the Web does in general) relies on sandboxing untrusted content on the user side. A binary encoding does not contribute significantly to obfuscation when it can be trivially undone. WebAssembly is an open standard, and browsers supporting wasm have builtin support for converting it to text and displaying it. Compiled code can be much harder to read than human-written code, though this is mainly because of lowering and optimization, rather than the final encoding.
  - lisivka 10y ago
    It's looks like you have very limited experience with Linux distros. Nobody forces Linux users to use repositories. We use repositories because we trust them much more than random binary blobs from Internet. Binary encoding contribute significantly to obfuscation, because it cannot be formatted, or refactored, or commented, or modified (e.g. to add assertion or print debugging information). Nobody programs in binary. WebAsm creates problem. Same problem as Java, Flash, Unity, PNaCl and dozens of other platforms to execute binary blobs from untrusted sources. And the only solution is to add trust, e.g. by publishing heavy-weight libraries for review and patching by third-party maintainers, e.g. such libraries as SDL, game engines, GUI, databases, etc. Otherwise, we will have same situation as with other libraries, e.g. JQuery, when sites are using old version of common library with known security problems for ages, despite that fixed version is freely available.

by sunfish 10y ago

lisivka 10y ago

It also great for obfuscation. PS. I am talking about problem of trust, which this binary format creates. Here, in Linux, we are solving problem of trust using distributions, maintainers, signed packages, signed repositories, releases. It's why I will trust binary packages from my distribution but will not trust webasm binaries.

sunfish 10y ago
Instead of having everything go through central trusted authorities, as Linux distros do, wasm (as the Web does in general) relies on sandboxing untrusted content on the user side. A binary encoding does not contribute significantly to obfuscation when it can be trivially undone. WebAssembly is an open standard, and browsers supporting wasm have builtin support for converting it to text and displaying it. Compiled code can be much harder to read than human-written code, though this is mainly because of lowering and optimization, rather than the final encoding.
- lisivka 10y ago
  It's looks like you have very limited experience with Linux distros. Nobody forces Linux users to use repositories. We use repositories because we trust them much more than random binary blobs from Internet. Binary encoding contribute significantly to obfuscation, because it cannot be formatted, or refactored, or commented, or modified (e.g. to add assertion or print debugging information). Nobody programs in binary. WebAsm creates problem. Same problem as Java, Flash, Unity, PNaCl and dozens of other platforms to execute binary blobs from untrusted sources. And the only solution is to add trust, e.g. by publishing heavy-weight libraries for review and patching by third-party maintainers, e.g. such libraries as SDL, game engines, GUI, databases, etc. Otherwise, we will have same situation as with other libraries, e.g. JQuery, when sites are using old version of common library with known security problems for ages, despite that fixed version is freely available.