3 ms·
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 fina
by 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 agoI 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 agoGood point. These are smart people developing these sandboxes - they know what they're getting themselves, and their users, in for.
- movedx 10y agoYep. 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...)