6 ms·

I can totally see Qt a and .NET apps running on top WebAssembly. Imagine MS Word is running in your browser without them having to rewrite it in JS!

by msoad 10y ago

dmarcos 10y ago
WebAssembly won't give you unlimited power. You will still have the browser sandboxing and security / privacy policies in place. Accessing to the local file system is for instance constrained in the browser for good reasons. WebAssembly apps will be able to do what Web APIs let any page do.
- mstade 10y ago
  Is this universally true – i.e. baked in to the wasm spec – or is it just true in a browser environment? Consider things like NW.js[1] or Electron[2] – might we see cross platform apps being developed where all or parts of it are written in <insert language here> and compiled to wasm, then packaged up with a runtime and delivered as a "native" application for desktop, mobile, or whatever? [1]: https://nwjs.io https://nwjs.io [2]: https://electron.atom.io https://electron.atom.io
  - johncolanduoni 10y ago
    No, the wasm spec doesnt mention web standards at all. It can be implemented without a JavaScript VM nearby, and at the moment isn't even capable of interacting with the DOM/JavaScript APIs directly when it is run in web browsers.
  - noam87 10y ago
    What would be the benefit of that? Might as well just compile to native and distribute that without all the overhead, no?
    - mstade 10y ago
      I probably should have specified but I was referring to GUI applications specifically. For things without a GUI, or that require deeper system integration than you get with these runtimes you're absolutely right – there's little point. But for a very large class of GUI applications it makes a lot of sense, working with technologies that not only have stood the test of time and are good enough for plenty of use cases, but also mean you can with very little effort package your application for multiple operating systems. Some of these applications will need stronger performance than can be provided by the JS engine, so hence the question re: wasm. Does that make more sense?
- flukus 10y ago
  Not a problem, we can just wait for the inevitable security vulnerabilities.
  - pcwalton 10y ago
    If it's "not a problem", it should be easy to write a Web page that opens calc.exe. Can you do that? Can anyone on HN do that?
    - comex 10y ago
      I think the parent was joking. Though there are people on HN who can do that, given some development time, like me.
  - eeZah7Ux 10y ago
    Receiving megabytes of untrusted blobs of compiled code from websites? Perhaps even DRM encrypted? What could possibly go wrong. At least js could be unminified and many standard libraries are somewhat trusted.
coldtea 10y ago
Yay! Nothing improved for me as a consumer, but total control of the app by Microsoft (it runs on their website and I don't even own my own copy) and slower speed (because of the extra VM and sandbox). Can't wait!
- robotresearcher 10y ago
  > Nothing improved for me as a consumer Nothing to install, no updates, no license key, not tied to a machine.... ?
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >Nothing to install Modern app stores like the Mac App Store make installing an one click affair. It will take me more clicks to login to their Word website... Also, "nothing to install" means "nothing to own". >no updates There will still be updates, only I won't be controlling them, and I wont be able to stick with an older version. Besides, it has been ages since updates for apps have been totally painless (e.g. with something like the Mac App Store, or a framework like Sparkle). >no license key Yes, but a password. And presumably a subscription, and my access to this "WebAssembly-based Office" lost when I can't fork out the money for a few months. (Also no piracy option for the developing world anymore). >not tied to a machine.... I can have that with regular software not running on a browser. I can use Reason e.g. (a native application) on any machine I care to install it with their over-the-internet verification.
    - robotresearcher 10y ago
      None of these things are true about MS Office (native - not online 365) right now, which was the specific subject this sub-thread.
      - coldtea 10y ago
        You seem to have totally missed what the "specific subject of this sub-thread is". A quick reminder from just the parent comment above to which we're answering: "Imagine MS Word is running in your browser without them having to rewrite it in JS!". That is, we're not talking about the native MS Office "right now".

I can totally see Qt a and .NET apps running on top WebAssembly. Imagine MS Word is running in your browser without them having to rewrite it in JS!

by msoad 10y ago

I can totally see Qt a and .NET apps running on top WebAssembly. Imagine MS Word is running in your browser without them having to rewrite it in JS!

dmarcos 10y ago

WebAssembly won't give you unlimited power. You will still have the browser sandboxing and security / privacy policies in place. Accessing to the local file system is for instance constrained in the browser for good reasons. WebAssembly apps will be able to do what Web APIs let any page do.

mstade 10y ago
Is this universally true – i.e. baked in to the wasm spec – or is it just true in a browser environment? Consider things like NW.js[1] or Electron[2] – might we see cross platform apps being developed where all or parts of it are written in <insert language here> and compiled to wasm, then packaged up with a runtime and delivered as a "native" application for desktop, mobile, or whatever? [1]: https://nwjs.io https://nwjs.io [2]: https://electron.atom.io https://electron.atom.io
- johncolanduoni 10y ago
  No, the wasm spec doesnt mention web standards at all. It can be implemented without a JavaScript VM nearby, and at the moment isn't even capable of interacting with the DOM/JavaScript APIs directly when it is run in web browsers.
- noam87 10y ago
  What would be the benefit of that? Might as well just compile to native and distribute that without all the overhead, no?
  - mstade 10y ago
    I probably should have specified but I was referring to GUI applications specifically. For things without a GUI, or that require deeper system integration than you get with these runtimes you're absolutely right – there's little point. But for a very large class of GUI applications it makes a lot of sense, working with technologies that not only have stood the test of time and are good enough for plenty of use cases, but also mean you can with very little effort package your application for multiple operating systems. Some of these applications will need stronger performance than can be provided by the JS engine, so hence the question re: wasm. Does that make more sense?
flukus 10y ago
Not a problem, we can just wait for the inevitable security vulnerabilities.
- pcwalton 10y ago
  If it's "not a problem", it should be easy to write a Web page that opens calc.exe. Can you do that? Can anyone on HN do that?
  - comex 10y ago
    I think the parent was joking. Though there are people on HN who can do that, given some development time, like me.
- eeZah7Ux 10y ago
  Receiving megabytes of untrusted blobs of compiled code from websites? Perhaps even DRM encrypted? What could possibly go wrong. At least js could be unminified and many standard libraries are somewhat trusted.

coldtea 10y ago

Yay! Nothing improved for me as a consumer, but total control of the app by Microsoft (it runs on their website and I don't even own my own copy) and slower speed (because of the extra VM and sandbox). Can't wait!

robotresearcher 10y ago
> Nothing improved for me as a consumer Nothing to install, no updates, no license key, not tied to a machine.... ?
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Nothing to install Modern app stores like the Mac App Store make installing an one click affair. It will take me more clicks to login to their Word website... Also, "nothing to install" means "nothing to own". >no updates There will still be updates, only I won't be controlling them, and I wont be able to stick with an older version. Besides, it has been ages since updates for apps have been totally painless (e.g. with something like the Mac App Store, or a framework like Sparkle). >no license key Yes, but a password. And presumably a subscription, and my access to this "WebAssembly-based Office" lost when I can't fork out the money for a few months. (Also no piracy option for the developing world anymore). >not tied to a machine.... I can have that with regular software not running on a browser. I can use Reason e.g. (a native application) on any machine I care to install it with their over-the-internet verification.
  - robotresearcher 10y ago
    None of these things are true about MS Office (native - not online 365) right now, which was the specific subject this sub-thread.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      You seem to have totally missed what the "specific subject of this sub-thread is". A quick reminder from just the parent comment above to which we're answering: "Imagine MS Word is running in your browser without them having to rewrite it in JS!". That is, we're not talking about the native MS Office "right now".