4 ms·

You'll probably get down-voted for your choice of language, but I agree. I actually feel what's going to happen is the JS community will start implementing Web

by movedx 10y ago

You'll probably get down-voted for your choice of language, but I agree. I actually feel what's going to happen is the JS community will start implementing WebASM and other very low-level mechanism to improve the speed of slow software components and, given enough time, will eventually just have entire binary applications being delivered through the browser (automatically installed, without asking you.) We'll go from `yum install software-suite` to `https://www.software-suite.com/` https://www.software-suite.com/` and the results will be the same. We'll have gone full circle.

corndoge 10y ago
I agree with you. Actually I think that at this stage, the browser should be viewed as a sandbox that can fetch and execute arbitrary binaries; then we can finally get past all the hacks that Web tech (js/dom/html/css/templates) is using to approximate that and actually build it for that express purpose, which should lead to better security (since we aren't pretending about what's happening -- it's untrusted code execution) and a better UX overall.
- johncolanduoni 10y ago
  I don't think the developers of any of the main browser's JS engines pretend they're not going to be executing hostile code. In fact I struggle to think of better embeddable software sandboxes than V8, SpiderMonkey, etc., especially now that they support WebAssembly.
  - movedx 10y ago
    Good point. These are smart people developing these sandboxes - they know what they're getting themselves, and their users, in for.
- movedx 10y ago
  Yep. We need to just skip all this JS and other web standards nonsense and skip straight to the writing Golang, Rust, C, whatever, that is delivered (as a binary) through the browser and into a nice little sandbox that exposes system level APIs (notification, temp file storage - everything we can already kinda do in JA now) so we can get on with a faster, better web. (Kind of makes me think we have this now: Docker/containers. Hmm... hit an HTTPS endpoint and a Docker container is downloaded and the application is launched...)

by movedx 10y ago

corndoge 10y ago

I agree with you. Actually I think that at this stage, the browser should be viewed as a sandbox that can fetch and execute arbitrary binaries; then we can finally get past all the hacks that Web tech (js/dom/html/css/templates) is using to approximate that and actually build it for that express purpose, which should lead to better security (since we aren't pretending about what's happening -- it's untrusted code execution) and a better UX overall.

johncolanduoni 10y ago
I don't think the developers of any of the main browser's JS engines pretend they're not going to be executing hostile code. In fact I struggle to think of better embeddable software sandboxes than V8, SpiderMonkey, etc., especially now that they support WebAssembly.
- movedx 10y ago
  Good point. These are smart people developing these sandboxes - they know what they're getting themselves, and their users, in for.
movedx 10y ago
Yep. We need to just skip all this JS and other web standards nonsense and skip straight to the writing Golang, Rust, C, whatever, that is delivered (as a binary) through the browser and into a nice little sandbox that exposes system level APIs (notification, temp file storage - everything we can already kinda do in JA now) so we can get on with a faster, better web. (Kind of makes me think we have this now: Docker/containers. Hmm... hit an HTTPS endpoint and a Docker container is downloaded and the application is launched...)