4 ms·

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.
    - inlined 7y ago
      >I'd really like to see Flash reborn on WASM Especially since so much of the internet was once on Flash and we're looking at the loss of historical archives.
      - faissaloo 7y ago
        Gnash is still being worked on iirc
    - tracker1 7y ago
      WASM + Canvas or WASM + OpenGL should give a significant part of that... but what made flash really special was the tooling around it. I wouldn't be surprised to see Adobe make some strides there, but the output may be less than optimal.
- BubRoss 7y ago
  Java applets came about in the days of 486s. They had huge startup time, were usually in a tiny little window, and everyone was starting from scratch with few libraries and drawing primitives. There was no webgl or compiling of existing UI programs into webasm with emscripten.
megous 7y ago
Webassembly is not magic. You still have to download and possibly cache code and assests. Call it install or not. I think win is having free software or at least opensource apps that are trusted by distributors and easy to analyze/modify, and actually own (meaning have on your harddrive and fully control). And we already have that win.
- tinus_hn 7y ago
  WebAssembly doesn’t support all the things that require installation. There is no integration, the apps can’t register for extensions, they can’t hook other programs. Most of this integration is only marginally useful anyway but people did need iOS, a popular OS that just does not support that kind of thing, to see it.
- inlined 7y ago
  [Former developer on the Windows Component and Applications team, renamed Developer Experience team] There's a big difference between an imperative (e.g. arbitrary code) and declarative installation process. Imperative installation is most common on Windows due to the initial decisions made by the registry designers + the Windows Installer originating from Office and starting with imperative. Declarative installs are common on the Mac where "installation" usually means dragging a binary from the DMG to your Applications folder. OS X then manages OS integrations declared in an app manifiest. Declarative installations delegate to a system which has a broader view and standard mechanisms to handle state transitions required for installs, upgrades, and uninstalls. Imperative installations frequently leave residue and are hard for even Windows to fix. I spent years of research and have several patents on trying to figure out how to distinguish between "extension points" of the OS and private state to create a sandbox with the necessary pinholes. Even with those tools handy, many software shops see no reason to upgrade because the Windows end user accepts a life of installers. I see logic in starting from scratch. This time we can create an end user expectation of declarative and (laterally + vertically) sandboxed apps. Hell, that's what we tried to do with Windows 8, but it was unfortunately restricted to the "modern" (aka full screen) apps that never caught on.
  - FpUser 7y ago
FpUser 7y ago
There is no free lunch in this universe. For big applications like CAD there will be nothing "instant" for in case of deployment as web apps. Downloading native packed archive and running install may actually be faster.
- kristiandupont 7y ago
  Sure, there are exceptions. Cinemas also still receive movies as physical harddrives for a number of reasons, but for most people and situations, streaming is fine.
  - FpUser 7y ago
    I am not sure about "most people" but I use fair number of applications (not including software development tools here as they do not pass"most people" criteria ) and none of those are streamed. Every time I try anything web based, online Tetris excepted ;) it sucks one or the other way
- Tossrock 7y ago
  OnShape is pretty darn quick.

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.
  - inlined 7y ago
    >I'd really like to see Flash reborn on WASM Especially since so much of the internet was once on Flash and we're looking at the loss of historical archives.
    - faissaloo 7y ago
      Gnash is still being worked on iirc
  - tracker1 7y ago
    WASM + Canvas or WASM + OpenGL should give a significant part of that... but what made flash really special was the tooling around it. I wouldn't be surprised to see Adobe make some strides there, but the output may be less than optimal.
BubRoss 7y ago
Java applets came about in the days of 486s. They had huge startup time, were usually in a tiny little window, and everyone was starting from scratch with few libraries and drawing primitives. There was no webgl or compiling of existing UI programs into webasm with emscripten.

megous 7y ago

Webassembly is not magic. You still have to download and possibly cache code and assests. Call it install or not. I think win is having free software or at least opensource apps that are trusted by distributors and easy to analyze/modify, and actually own (meaning have on your harddrive and fully control). And we already have that win.

tinus_hn 7y ago
WebAssembly doesn’t support all the things that require installation. There is no integration, the apps can’t register for extensions, they can’t hook other programs. Most of this integration is only marginally useful anyway but people did need iOS, a popular OS that just does not support that kind of thing, to see it.
inlined 7y ago
[Former developer on the Windows Component and Applications team, renamed Developer Experience team] There's a big difference between an imperative (e.g. arbitrary code) and declarative installation process. Imperative installation is most common on Windows due to the initial decisions made by the registry designers + the Windows Installer originating from Office and starting with imperative. Declarative installs are common on the Mac where "installation" usually means dragging a binary from the DMG to your Applications folder. OS X then manages OS integrations declared in an app manifiest. Declarative installations delegate to a system which has a broader view and standard mechanisms to handle state transitions required for installs, upgrades, and uninstalls. Imperative installations frequently leave residue and are hard for even Windows to fix. I spent years of research and have several patents on trying to figure out how to distinguish between "extension points" of the OS and private state to create a sandbox with the necessary pinholes. Even with those tools handy, many software shops see no reason to upgrade because the Windows end user accepts a life of installers. I see logic in starting from scratch. This time we can create an end user expectation of declarative and (laterally + vertically) sandboxed apps. Hell, that's what we tried to do with Windows 8, but it was unfortunately restricted to the "modern" (aka full screen) apps that never caught on.
- FpUser 7y ago

FpUser 7y ago

There is no free lunch in this universe. For big applications like CAD there will be nothing "instant" for in case of deployment as web apps. Downloading native packed archive and running install may actually be faster.

kristiandupont 7y ago
Sure, there are exceptions. Cinemas also still receive movies as physical harddrives for a number of reasons, but for most people and situations, streaming is fine.
- FpUser 7y ago
  I am not sure about "most people" but I use fair number of applications (not including software development tools here as they do not pass"most people" criteria ) and none of those are streamed. Every time I try anything web based, online Tetris excepted ;) it sucks one or the other way
Tossrock 7y ago
OnShape is pretty darn quick.