10 ms·

But what is a computer for if not running other people's code? I can't imagine there are many people in this world who have a computer with more than even 1% t

by jazoom 9y ago

But what is a computer for if not running other people's code? I can't imagine there are many people in this world who have a computer with more than even 1% their own code running on it.

phkahler 9y ago
Red herring. People install or explicitly download code they want to run. The general public doesn't even realize that most web pages are full of code (js not html) and most developers have gotten so used to it they feel entitled. The goal should be to try harder to use less code, not enable native execution. I understand, engineers like to think about what is possible (wouldn't it be cool if..!) but sometime they need to check their ego and consider context.
- jazoom 9y ago
  99%+ of people don't think like you and don't care about the distinction between code on the browser and code on the OS. "A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion." I don't see how my comment is a red herring. Computers are for running code. That's what they do. You said you don't want other people's code running on your computer. Bad news for you, that's all your computer does.
  - scaryclam 9y ago
    Computers are for running code as much as cars are for consuming fuel. They both need them to function in the manner that we currently use them, but that's not what they are for. Both computers and cars exist to perform tasks that enable humans to do other things. It's possible to have a useful car that does not consume fuel and it's possible to have a useful computer that runs no code (hint: hardware's not just for mounting those pretty lights in your computer case).
  - notheguyouthink 9y ago
    I definitely don't disagree with your statements, but I think OP meant more akin to "the web is not for running other peoples code". Ie, the web is for content, not applications. This may not be what OP meant.. but it's something I can agree with to a degree. I love web apps, don't get me wrong, but I wish we had meaningful fallbacks for those who want content without features.
    - goatlover 9y ago
      > Ie, the web is for content, not applications. Ideally yes, but that horse left the barn years ago. The browser becomes more capable, chalk full of more APIs over time, not less.
      - z3t4 9y ago
        The more capable the browser gets the more people will turn off these capabilities. I love JS and the web, yet I have JS off by default! Mostly because it gets rid of a lot of crap, but I also don't trust every single web site I visit.
- hdhzy 9y ago
  Is this relevant what the people are aware of? If you drive a car do you need to be aware of its internals? WebAssembly looks like a safe, portable, intermediate bytecode. What's wrong with giving people more options (e.g. running native applications in their browsers)?
  - adventured 9y ago
    > If you drive a car do you need to be aware of its internals? You walked yourself into an obvious answer there: yes, to a limited extent you do. That includes understanding a bare minimum about tires, the engine (what noises are normal, what noises aren't normal), oil changing (why, when), windshield washer fluid, basic indications of electric problems, basics about the need to change brakes (indications of brakes going bad, why they need changed), the basics of the parking brake (and not to drive with it engaged and why), the usefulness of different types of tires (for example snow tires), why you shouldn't needlessly over-rev an engine frequently (or do stupid things like over-rev it for an hour while parked), how turn signals work and the need to make sure the lights on your vehicle are functioning, how high beams work (or at least how to use them), how gear shifting works and why it's important not to thrash your transmission (what abnormal shifting sounds like, why that matters), this list keeps going and I've really only covered primitive things that most or all drivers should know within the first year or so of driving.
    - zaarn 9y ago
      Most drivers don't concern themselves with the alloy composition of their catalysator or the exact air-to-fuel ratio in their cylinder headers or the necessary pressure in the breakheads during an emergency halt. Or the composition of the road below them in exact ratios of chemical components.
    - hdhzy 9y ago
      Continuing the comparison that means people need to understand not to cold power off the computer, not the specifics of CSS, JS and HTML. Note that cars are also going to be more and more abstracted away with automatic gear shifting (now I don't need to understand how gear shifting works). Do people really need to understand how CPU work to do their banking?
- tomxor 9y ago
  > People install or explicitly download code they want to run Not really, explicit installation are not the real difference: you ask for one package in some package manager and you will commonly implicitly get a bunch of other dependencies installed, you will likely never be able to feasibly personally audit all those implicitly installed packages if we are talking about e.g OS repositories... The real differences are: 1. Trust of the authority that maintains a collection of repositories. 2. Execution permissions. i.e The package manager for your OS can install code that can run with root privileges if it wants, but you have trust in the authority that maintains the package lists. With the web there isn't any curation of package lists, but the code is sandboxed.
  - wang_li 9y ago
    The last time that a package I installed proceeded to install code that the vendor didn't know about was never. The last time a web page caused my browser to download and run js that the page owner didn't know about was five minutes ago.
    - seangrogg 9y ago
      So every package author understands each of their dependencies and all of their respective sub-dependencies, recursively on down? This is probably the best bit of programming humor I've read all morning.
      - wang_li 9y ago
        >So every package author understands each of their dependencies and all of their respective sub-dependencies, recursively on down? Have they personally audited every dependency? Probably not. Is the list of dependencies known? Yes. Is the list fixed? Yes. On the webpage side: Does the content provider know what will be served by their ad network? No. Does the ad network provided content change? Yes, constantly. Does the content provider even know who ultimately will be putting crap on their web page via the ads? No.
        9y ago
- bengillies 9y ago
  > The goal should be to try harder to use less code The goal is to deliver content and experiences that people actually want, it has nothing to do with the amount of code at all. At best, using less code might be a performance optimisation (though not always).
  - tzahola 9y ago
    >The goal is to deliver content and experiences that people actually want Wrong. 99% of the time the goal is to sell ads. The tricky stuff is to bundle it with something that people actually want (or think they want).
    - bengillies 9y ago
      So we're both agreed then that the goal isn't to "use less code"? I get your point though, so I'll rephrase: > The goal should be to try harder to use less code Why is this the goal? At best it's a performance optimisation that some (probably most) sites could use to speed up time to render. But at the same time, there are many other sites where this doesn't make sense or for which the purpose isn't the traditional document based web that is sped up by removing JS. Why should sites that actually benefit from something like WebAssembly be limited just because other sites will use it and (continue to) be slow bug ridden monsters?
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  > "Red herring. People install or explicitly download code they want to run." When you visit a website, and you have given your browser permission to run JS, you're giving your permission to run JS. If you want to block scripts by default, use an extension like uMatrix: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/umatrix/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/umatrix/
  - phkahler 9y ago
    >> When you visit a website, and you have given your browser permission to run JS My browser never asked me about JS. Even if it did, browser developers would switch the preference rather than annoy the user with a prompt every time a site wanted to run some JS. The end result is that whatever is common practice, the users will end up accepting by default. In such cases it is the responsibility of the people setting standards to keep the users safety in mind. The responses in this thread really make my point. So many making excuses for running excess code and even advocating more APIs.
    - ZenoArrow 9y ago
      Take some personal responsibility for the tools you use and how you use them. If a tool has some behaviour I don't like, but makes it easy to change it to something I do, there's no point in moaning that the option exists.
- zanny 9y ago
  Web pages have included code in them since 1996. Less than 1% of browser users have ever experienced an Internet without code included in the pages they visit (or run NoScript). While there is issue with how ill informed the general public is in general on how web browsers / http / html operate in the first place, there is no disinformation campaign here - users don't think the browser does or doesn't run code because they don't understand how any of the system they are interacting with operates at all. The average extent of knowledge when it comes to computers is that the Chrome has the Facebook and you need the Wifi logo lit up for it to work, and even that last one is often way beyond the knowledge scope of your average Internet user.

by jazoom 9y ago

But what is a computer for if not running other people's code? I can't imagine there are many people in this world who have a computer with more than even 1% their own code running on it.

phkahler 9y ago

Red herring. People install or explicitly download code they want to run. The general public doesn't even realize that most web pages are full of code (js not html) and most developers have gotten so used to it they feel entitled. The goal should be to try harder to use less code, not enable native execution. I understand, engineers like to think about what is possible (wouldn't it be cool if..!) but sometime they need to check their ego and consider context.

jazoom 9y ago
99%+ of people don't think like you and don't care about the distinction between code on the browser and code on the OS. "A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion." I don't see how my comment is a red herring. Computers are for running code. That's what they do. You said you don't want other people's code running on your computer. Bad news for you, that's all your computer does.
- scaryclam 9y ago
  Computers are for running code as much as cars are for consuming fuel. They both need them to function in the manner that we currently use them, but that's not what they are for. Both computers and cars exist to perform tasks that enable humans to do other things. It's possible to have a useful car that does not consume fuel and it's possible to have a useful computer that runs no code (hint: hardware's not just for mounting those pretty lights in your computer case).
- notheguyouthink 9y ago
  I definitely don't disagree with your statements, but I think OP meant more akin to "the web is not for running other peoples code". Ie, the web is for content, not applications. This may not be what OP meant.. but it's something I can agree with to a degree. I love web apps, don't get me wrong, but I wish we had meaningful fallbacks for those who want content without features.
  - goatlover 9y ago
    > Ie, the web is for content, not applications. Ideally yes, but that horse left the barn years ago. The browser becomes more capable, chalk full of more APIs over time, not less.
    - z3t4 9y ago
      The more capable the browser gets the more people will turn off these capabilities. I love JS and the web, yet I have JS off by default! Mostly because it gets rid of a lot of crap, but I also don't trust every single web site I visit.
hdhzy 9y ago
Is this relevant what the people are aware of? If you drive a car do you need to be aware of its internals? WebAssembly looks like a safe, portable, intermediate bytecode. What's wrong with giving people more options (e.g. running native applications in their browsers)?
- adventured 9y ago
  > If you drive a car do you need to be aware of its internals? You walked yourself into an obvious answer there: yes, to a limited extent you do. That includes understanding a bare minimum about tires, the engine (what noises are normal, what noises aren't normal), oil changing (why, when), windshield washer fluid, basic indications of electric problems, basics about the need to change brakes (indications of brakes going bad, why they need changed), the basics of the parking brake (and not to drive with it engaged and why), the usefulness of different types of tires (for example snow tires), why you shouldn't needlessly over-rev an engine frequently (or do stupid things like over-rev it for an hour while parked), how turn signals work and the need to make sure the lights on your vehicle are functioning, how high beams work (or at least how to use them), how gear shifting works and why it's important not to thrash your transmission (what abnormal shifting sounds like, why that matters), this list keeps going and I've really only covered primitive things that most or all drivers should know within the first year or so of driving.
  - zaarn 9y ago
    Most drivers don't concern themselves with the alloy composition of their catalysator or the exact air-to-fuel ratio in their cylinder headers or the necessary pressure in the breakheads during an emergency halt. Or the composition of the road below them in exact ratios of chemical components.
  - hdhzy 9y ago
    Continuing the comparison that means people need to understand not to cold power off the computer, not the specifics of CSS, JS and HTML. Note that cars are also going to be more and more abstracted away with automatic gear shifting (now I don't need to understand how gear shifting works). Do people really need to understand how CPU work to do their banking?
tomxor 9y ago
> People install or explicitly download code they want to run Not really, explicit installation are not the real difference: you ask for one package in some package manager and you will commonly implicitly get a bunch of other dependencies installed, you will likely never be able to feasibly personally audit all those implicitly installed packages if we are talking about e.g OS repositories... The real differences are: 1. Trust of the authority that maintains a collection of repositories. 2. Execution permissions. i.e The package manager for your OS can install code that can run with root privileges if it wants, but you have trust in the authority that maintains the package lists. With the web there isn't any curation of package lists, but the code is sandboxed.
- wang_li 9y ago
  The last time that a package I installed proceeded to install code that the vendor didn't know about was never. The last time a web page caused my browser to download and run js that the page owner didn't know about was five minutes ago.
  - seangrogg 9y ago
    So every package author understands each of their dependencies and all of their respective sub-dependencies, recursively on down? This is probably the best bit of programming humor I've read all morning.
    - wang_li 9y ago
      >So every package author understands each of their dependencies and all of their respective sub-dependencies, recursively on down? Have they personally audited every dependency? Probably not. Is the list of dependencies known? Yes. Is the list fixed? Yes. On the webpage side: Does the content provider know what will be served by their ad network? No. Does the ad network provided content change? Yes, constantly. Does the content provider even know who ultimately will be putting crap on their web page via the ads? No.
      - 9y ago
bengillies 9y ago
> The goal should be to try harder to use less code The goal is to deliver content and experiences that people actually want, it has nothing to do with the amount of code at all. At best, using less code might be a performance optimisation (though not always).
- tzahola 9y ago
  >The goal is to deliver content and experiences that people actually want Wrong. 99% of the time the goal is to sell ads. The tricky stuff is to bundle it with something that people actually want (or think they want).
  - bengillies 9y ago
    So we're both agreed then that the goal isn't to "use less code"? I get your point though, so I'll rephrase: > The goal should be to try harder to use less code Why is this the goal? At best it's a performance optimisation that some (probably most) sites could use to speed up time to render. But at the same time, there are many other sites where this doesn't make sense or for which the purpose isn't the traditional document based web that is sped up by removing JS. Why should sites that actually benefit from something like WebAssembly be limited just because other sites will use it and (continue to) be slow bug ridden monsters?
ZenoArrow 9y ago
> "Red herring. People install or explicitly download code they want to run." When you visit a website, and you have given your browser permission to run JS, you're giving your permission to run JS. If you want to block scripts by default, use an extension like uMatrix: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/umatrix/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/umatrix/
- phkahler 9y ago
  >> When you visit a website, and you have given your browser permission to run JS My browser never asked me about JS. Even if it did, browser developers would switch the preference rather than annoy the user with a prompt every time a site wanted to run some JS. The end result is that whatever is common practice, the users will end up accepting by default. In such cases it is the responsibility of the people setting standards to keep the users safety in mind. The responses in this thread really make my point. So many making excuses for running excess code and even advocating more APIs.
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    Take some personal responsibility for the tools you use and how you use them. If a tool has some behaviour I don't like, but makes it easy to change it to something I do, there's no point in moaning that the option exists.
zanny 9y ago
Web pages have included code in them since 1996. Less than 1% of browser users have ever experienced an Internet without code included in the pages they visit (or run NoScript). While there is issue with how ill informed the general public is in general on how web browsers / http / html operate in the first place, there is no disinformation campaign here - users don't think the browser does or doesn't run code because they don't understand how any of the system they are interacting with operates at all. The average extent of knowledge when it comes to computers is that the Chrome has the Facebook and you need the Wifi logo lit up for it to work, and even that last one is often way beyond the knowledge scope of your average Internet user.