8 ms·

Ok. At some point in the future the browser/wasm will have won. So instead of Linux/Windows/OSX we will have Firefox/Safari/Chrome/Whatever all with their own i

by FpUser 7y ago

Ok. At some point in the future the browser/wasm will have won. So instead of Linux/Windows/OSX we will have Firefox/Safari/Chrome/Whatever all with their own implementation gotchas, missing features and performance loss. All for the sake of browser vendors trying to displace the existing native deployment platforms. They sure have nice financial incentive. Why do we - developers fall into this trap? We've been there quite a few times already, with cross platform standards. No matter what vendors will fsck'em up with proprietary things.

kowdermeister 7y ago
> Why do we - developers fall into this trap? Regardless of is this a trap or not, it's obvious to me that developers want simplicity and consistency. WA provides both so don't wonder why it's taking off. > So instead of Linux/Windows/OSX we will have Firefox/Safari/Chrome/Whatever all with their own implementation gotchas I let the compilers worry about this :)
- FpUser 7y ago
  Yeah, right. Compilers do not deal with the difference in presence / absence and different implementations of various features on different platforms, be it native OS or Browser OS.
  - kowdermeister 7y ago
    Is that so? Worst case I can imagine is to have the same compiler emit app-firefox.wasm and app-chrome.wasm binaries from the same codebase, but I think this is highly unlikely. But there probably always will be a safe flag that generates everywhere running binaries.
    - FpUser 7y ago
      And by then you will have discovered that your software can not do this and that after being relegated to a lowest common denominator state.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  Yes, declaring the hard parts to be someone else's problem always works out in the end, doesn't it? Hopefully in 20 years, when people are talking about MetaWebAssembly to abstract away the platforms that run on WASM, you'll have a different perspective on what you've said here.
  - kristiandupont 7y ago
    Oh come on. If you are doing any kind of development, you too, are relying on abstractions and someone elses machinery. That doesn't make you lazy or amoral or something.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
      Yes, but I'm not under the delusion that adding more abstractions will solve the problem. And actually, I really wish there were fewer abstractions because they often just get in the way.
      - thanatropism 7y ago
        Adding more abstractions solve existing problems while creating new ones. But then, this is what humans have been doing since we figured out stone flints.
Epskampie 7y ago
Because this time around we will have instant (no install) apps that are inherently sandboxed? Seems like a pretty big win to me.
- gioele 7y ago
  We already had "instant (no install) apps that are inherently sandboxed": Java and its net-top boxes. Why didn't it work?
  - NoGravitas 7y ago
    Timing, probably. Java was too slow in downloading and running on the commodity networks and hardware available at the time. Now that both of those are fast enough, we're seeing another implementation of the same idea.
  - PaulHoule 7y ago
    Many things. I was involved with Java applets when Java was in beta and one of the most annoying things was that JDK 1.0 did not come with serialization. I would build applets that displayed content generated on the server and serialization-deserialization code could be 2/3 of the program. Most people had a slow net back then, so the download performance was a big deal. JDK 1.1 put serialization in right away, but Netscape had already introduced it's own incompatible serializer, and there were delays in getting JDK 1.1, plus people didn't like Java serialization -- practically there was a year or two where you couldn't use it. Applets had enough teething pains that people quickly came to the conclusion that they weren't worth the trouble, then Flash came along which came closer to what people wanted at the time.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - bartq 7y ago
      I'd really like to see Flash reborn on WASM. WASM is a standard, so there will be no problems known to software produced and distributed by a private business (Macromedia/Adobe), problems like closed format, resources access control etc.
flohofwoe 7y ago
But it's the other way around. Can you distribute a native application on macOS without Apple's blessing? No, you can't (not when Catalina will be out anyway). And Windows is closing the "gap" really fast too. Try distributing a native installer without the browser or SmartScreen bringing up a scare-dialog-box. Until OS vendors are willing to provide a safe sandbox to run untrusted code in, and untangled from a non-technical curating mechanism which has all sorts of conflicts-of-interests of what's morally acceptable and what's not, WASM is the next best thing to an open, yet secure, platform. Desktop Linux aside, the web is currently the only open platform for distributing software outside of the interests of a single "platform owner". Google may close this "loop hole" soon, so I'm not too optimistic for the future, but today, that's what it is.
- FpUser 7y ago
  I am partially an ISV and we provide pure native application for Windows at the moment. No UWP/.NET/APP_STORE/WHATEVER . It is digitally signed and distributed by downloading from our web site. So far no problem. Since we've been in business a number of years there are no any browser/OS/Antivirus level warning boxed during downloading and installation.
- jakobegger 7y ago
  > Can you distribute a native application on macOS without Apple's blessing? No, you can't. I've been running the Catalina betas, and running non-notarized apps only requires right clicking instead of double clicking. If that's too much of an obstacle for you, you probably shouldn't run the app. Gatekeeper on macOS is a technology designed to protect careless users. It makes it slightly harder to shoot yourself in the foot. It doesn't prevent you from doing it, though.
- 0815test 7y ago
  > Until OS vendors are willing to provide a safe sandbox to run untrusted code in Thing is, "safe" OS-sandboxes are not safe; "local" privilege escalation vulnerabilities are still pervasive. Until OS's are safe enough that I can run `sudo -u nobody untrusted_binary` and not even think about the possibility of it taking over my system, something like the WASM sandbox (perhaps extended with WASI and other optional mechanisms) will always be needed.
gridlockd 7y ago
I don't see it this way at all. Browser vendors have been very reluctant to accept that they're now supposed to provide a real application development platform. It's businesses that demand web applications, because native deployment (in-house or for customers) is a tougher sell. A lot of it has to do with the bad security model of desktop operating systems combined with the overhead of administration. Last but not least, web developers are the biggest pool to hire from. It all adds up to where the benefits outweigh the (significant!) drawbacks.
- FpUser 7y ago
  "...Last but not least, web developers are the biggest pool to hire from..." For boiler plate business web apps sure. And while those are probably being prevalent the world does not stop there.
  - ScottFree 7y ago
    Companies are running webapps on embedded devices now, but I don't buy the ease of hiring excuse. Web devs demand higher salaries than embedded developers and they have more leverage in terms of where they can work (ie: they're flaky as pie crust). Embedded developers are also more likely to pass the hazing ritual known as the programming interview. Where's the upside to hiring web developers in that context?
    - FpUser 7y ago
      "Companies are running webapps on embedded devices now" - sure my router and some of my own private hardware have web interfaces. It is however just a tiny bit of their functionality. The rest leaves happily as native code.
    - tracker1 7y ago
      I think it's a mixed bag... a lot of developers think they know JavaScript or understand web applications. I've found that about 90% are not very good with it in practice. Often with job titles as Mid or Sr developers. Actually understanding more about JS and the browser, and actual application development, and how it fits are good places to start. I find that the browser model actually fits a redux-like master state machine better than MV* that a lot of experienced developers, but inexperienced web app developers tend to focus on. It just depends. I think there's room for most players, and IU do think WASM offers a LOT or will as runtimes and standard libraries shake out. I'm looking forward to seeing things develop more... IMHO there should be a focus to standardize interfaces for Canvas, WebGL, Audio and FS first. When you can run an application against canvas 2d or webgl with audio and sqlite, I think that's a large way there. Better input support (controllers as well as kb/mouse) is also pretty high. I know people are working on these things. Getting something that runs almost everywhere will be very nice and although there's some overlap with the intent of the JVM, WASM has more primitive options (for the good) and can support a greater range of sources to a single target set of interfaces.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Silhouette 7y ago
Why do we - developers fall into this trap? The models for installation, security, privacy and updates on the desktop platforms have barely improved in twenty years, and they really needed some improvement. The models for installation, updates, payment, portability and development tools on the mobile native platforms all have major downsides as well. If you build and distribute your software as a web app, you can still do everything that matters for many purposes, you retain complete control of your own software, infrastructure and business model, and your app can work well with relatively little effort on a much wider variety of target platforms.

by FpUser 7y ago

kowdermeister 7y ago

> Why do we - developers fall into this trap? Regardless of is this a trap or not, it's obvious to me that developers want simplicity and consistency. WA provides both so don't wonder why it's taking off. > So instead of Linux/Windows/OSX we will have Firefox/Safari/Chrome/Whatever all with their own implementation gotchas I let the compilers worry about this :)

FpUser 7y ago
Yeah, right. Compilers do not deal with the difference in presence / absence and different implementations of various features on different platforms, be it native OS or Browser OS.
- kowdermeister 7y ago
  Is that so? Worst case I can imagine is to have the same compiler emit app-firefox.wasm and app-chrome.wasm binaries from the same codebase, but I think this is highly unlikely. But there probably always will be a safe flag that generates everywhere running binaries.
  - FpUser 7y ago
    And by then you will have discovered that your software can not do this and that after being relegated to a lowest common denominator state.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
Yes, declaring the hard parts to be someone else's problem always works out in the end, doesn't it? Hopefully in 20 years, when people are talking about MetaWebAssembly to abstract away the platforms that run on WASM, you'll have a different perspective on what you've said here.
- kristiandupont 7y ago
  Oh come on. If you are doing any kind of development, you too, are relying on abstractions and someone elses machinery. That doesn't make you lazy or amoral or something.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    Yes, but I'm not under the delusion that adding more abstractions will solve the problem. And actually, I really wish there were fewer abstractions because they often just get in the way.
    - thanatropism 7y ago
      Adding more abstractions solve existing problems while creating new ones. But then, this is what humans have been doing since we figured out stone flints.

Epskampie 7y ago

Because this time around we will have instant (no install) apps that are inherently sandboxed? Seems like a pretty big win to me.

gioele 7y ago
We already had "instant (no install) apps that are inherently sandboxed": Java and its net-top boxes. Why didn't it work?
- NoGravitas 7y ago
  Timing, probably. Java was too slow in downloading and running on the commodity networks and hardware available at the time. Now that both of those are fast enough, we're seeing another implementation of the same idea.
- PaulHoule 7y ago
  Many things. I was involved with Java applets when Java was in beta and one of the most annoying things was that JDK 1.0 did not come with serialization. I would build applets that displayed content generated on the server and serialization-deserialization code could be 2/3 of the program. Most people had a slow net back then, so the download performance was a big deal. JDK 1.1 put serialization in right away, but Netscape had already introduced it's own incompatible serializer, and there were delays in getting JDK 1.1, plus people didn't like Java serialization -- practically there was a year or two where you couldn't use it. Applets had enough teething pains that people quickly came to the conclusion that they weren't worth the trouble, then Flash came along which came closer to what people wanted at the time.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - bartq 7y ago
    I'd really like to see Flash reborn on WASM. WASM is a standard, so there will be no problems known to software produced and distributed by a private business (Macromedia/Adobe), problems like closed format, resources access control etc.

flohofwoe 7y ago

But it's the other way around. Can you distribute a native application on macOS without Apple's blessing? No, you can't (not when Catalina will be out anyway). And Windows is closing the "gap" really fast too. Try distributing a native installer without the browser or SmartScreen bringing up a scare-dialog-box. Until OS vendors are willing to provide a safe sandbox to run untrusted code in, and untangled from a non-technical curating mechanism which has all sorts of conflicts-of-interests of what's morally acceptable and what's not, WASM is the next best thing to an open, yet secure, platform. Desktop Linux aside, the web is currently the only open platform for distributing software outside of the interests of a single "platform owner". Google may close this "loop hole" soon, so I'm not too optimistic for the future, but today, that's what it is.

FpUser 7y ago
I am partially an ISV and we provide pure native application for Windows at the moment. No UWP/.NET/APP_STORE/WHATEVER . It is digitally signed and distributed by downloading from our web site. So far no problem. Since we've been in business a number of years there are no any browser/OS/Antivirus level warning boxed during downloading and installation.
jakobegger 7y ago
> Can you distribute a native application on macOS without Apple's blessing? No, you can't. I've been running the Catalina betas, and running non-notarized apps only requires right clicking instead of double clicking. If that's too much of an obstacle for you, you probably shouldn't run the app. Gatekeeper on macOS is a technology designed to protect careless users. It makes it slightly harder to shoot yourself in the foot. It doesn't prevent you from doing it, though.
0815test 7y ago
> Until OS vendors are willing to provide a safe sandbox to run untrusted code in Thing is, "safe" OS-sandboxes are not safe; "local" privilege escalation vulnerabilities are still pervasive. Until OS's are safe enough that I can run `sudo -u nobody untrusted_binary` and not even think about the possibility of it taking over my system, something like the WASM sandbox (perhaps extended with WASI and other optional mechanisms) will always be needed.

gridlockd 7y ago

I don't see it this way at all. Browser vendors have been very reluctant to accept that they're now supposed to provide a real application development platform. It's businesses that demand web applications, because native deployment (in-house or for customers) is a tougher sell. A lot of it has to do with the bad security model of desktop operating systems combined with the overhead of administration. Last but not least, web developers are the biggest pool to hire from. It all adds up to where the benefits outweigh the (significant!) drawbacks.

FpUser 7y ago
"...Last but not least, web developers are the biggest pool to hire from..." For boiler plate business web apps sure. And while those are probably being prevalent the world does not stop there.
- ScottFree 7y ago
  Companies are running webapps on embedded devices now, but I don't buy the ease of hiring excuse. Web devs demand higher salaries than embedded developers and they have more leverage in terms of where they can work (ie: they're flaky as pie crust). Embedded developers are also more likely to pass the hazing ritual known as the programming interview. Where's the upside to hiring web developers in that context?
  - FpUser 7y ago
    "Companies are running webapps on embedded devices now" - sure my router and some of my own private hardware have web interfaces. It is however just a tiny bit of their functionality. The rest leaves happily as native code.
  - tracker1 7y ago
    I think it's a mixed bag... a lot of developers think they know JavaScript or understand web applications. I've found that about 90% are not very good with it in practice. Often with job titles as Mid or Sr developers. Actually understanding more about JS and the browser, and actual application development, and how it fits are good places to start. I find that the browser model actually fits a redux-like master state machine better than MV* that a lot of experienced developers, but inexperienced web app developers tend to focus on. It just depends. I think there's room for most players, and IU do think WASM offers a LOT or will as runtimes and standard libraries shake out. I'm looking forward to seeing things develop more... IMHO there should be a focus to standardize interfaces for Canvas, WebGL, Audio and FS first. When you can run an application against canvas 2d or webgl with audio and sqlite, I think that's a large way there. Better input support (controllers as well as kb/mouse) is also pretty high. I know people are working on these things. Getting something that runs almost everywhere will be very nice and although there's some overlap with the intent of the JVM, WASM has more primitive options (for the good) and can support a greater range of sources to a single target set of interfaces.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Silhouette 7y ago

Why do we - developers fall into this trap? The models for installation, security, privacy and updates on the desktop platforms have barely improved in twenty years, and they really needed some improvement. The models for installation, updates, payment, portability and development tools on the mobile native platforms all have major downsides as well. If you build and distribute your software as a web app, you can still do everything that matters for many purposes, you retain complete control of your own software, infrastructure and business model, and your app can work well with relatively little effort on a much wider variety of target platforms.