5 ms·
Perhaps we should be going back to writing websites in assembly.
by tokenizerrr 10y ago
Perhaps we should be going back to writing websites in assembly.
- the_gastropod 10y agoI don't think this is a fair argument. Writing web pages as single page JS apps is _harder_ than writing them as server-side generated html responses. And in many cases (this one as a great example), the user experience is worse for having done so.
- ddorian43 10y agoSee http://webassembly.org/ http://webassembly.org/ . While not raw assembly, we have to because of the js nonsense. This will ofcourse also increase the jsnonsense, cause now everything will be more efficient so we can put alot more crap.
- tokenizerrr 10y agoI am aware of webassembly, and I'm sure that codedokode would explode if s/he were to notice that a website such as this was written using it. It wouldn't run without JavaScript being enabled, for one.
- codedokode 10y agoIn future publishers will probably use web assembly for DRM, for example, to render decrypted article text on a canvas so that it cannot be copied, zoomed, read aloud or viewed without advertisement and annoying popups. Maybe you will change your mind about Javascript then.
- mitchty 10y agoYou jest, but in one of the discussions for EME, that exact case was brought up. Only they wanted to drm javascript sent to the browser. We got rid of Flash only to see a new hydra head emerge. People clamoring for javascript applications should be careful what they wish for. They just might get it.
- inflagranti 10y agoThis is such a bad example, as JS is actually more low level than a declarative language like HTML.