6 ms·

Hi, original author here, Responding to your bytecode argument, modern JavaScript JITs are already compiling JavaScript to machine code. That means JavaScript

Hi, original author here, Responding to your bytecode argument, modern JavaScript JITs are already compiling JavaScript to machine code. That means JavaScript is becoming the de facto bytecode of the web. Then the argument becomes "what's the most appealing bytecode for the web?" I'd argue that SWF isn't (closed), Java isn't (for the same memory layout and language translation issues I discussed), and JavaScript isn't (memory layout and language translation). Sandboxed LLVM makes a much better intermediate format in a world where web applications have the same capabilities as native applications. "The author fails to point out why would anyone want low level memory access." Please read Tom Forsyth's postings that I linked at the top of mine. Basically, in the last 30 years, clock speeds have gone through the roof, but memory latencies have only increased a couple orders of magnitude. Thus, memory is a primary concern in any application where low-level performance matters, like the ones I listed (games, simulations, video, DSP).

BonsaiDen 16y ago
> like the ones I listed (games, simulations, video, DSP). Those should not run in a Browser, they should on a real OS (or Emacs). What's next VMWare inside your Browser? Then it's OS -> Browser -> VM -> OS -> Browser... Sorry but just because things are possible, doesn't mean that they should be done...
- mahmud 16y ago
  but you can't just right-click on a binary executable and "view soure", bro! ~ Seriously, people managed to write successful, cross-platform software without expecting everyone with any kind of gadget or device to run it with one click.
  - chc 16y ago
    When was this? Atlantis? I don't remember any point in history where this was simple and commonplace.
- CodeMage 16y ago
  Games should not run in a browser? That's a funny claim. Try telling that to: 1. Millions of users, who play them happily each day. 2. Sites like Kongregate, Armor Games and Newgrounds, whose business is to publish them. 3. Sites like FlashGameLicense, whose business is to help the business of developing and publishing games that run in browsers. If something can be done, someone will probably try to make a business out of it. If it catches on, then people who say "just because something is possible, doesn't mean it should be done" are wasting their breath.
- vilya 16y ago
  "Those should not run in a Browser, they should on a real OS (or Emacs)." Why? It was not so long ago that people would have said the same thing about an email client.
cdavid 16y ago
While you're right that memory is the bottleneck in many CPU intensive programs, the idea that you need low level access to circumvent it is far from obvious. For example, several well known people have argued that C makes it more difficult to use memory effectively, because pointers make compiler job so difficult (Fortran still beats C for most numerical benchmarks). I think we are at a point where architectures are so different that even though in theory, controlling memory pattern is potentially more powerful, in practice, it is impossible to do it right except when you can spend insane amount of time on it. The difference between P4 and core duo, for example, is enormous as far as organizing memory accesses. This is exactly like ASM vs C: you can still beat C with ASM, but doing so across all architectures is almost impossible to do it by hand.
rbanffy 16y ago
> JavaScript JITs are already compiling JavaScript to machine code The details of how the interpreter works and of what it interprets are irrelevant to this discussion. It's JavaScript code that's being transported, not the compiled binary. While I agree tools like Closure somewhat obscure the resulting JavaScript, it's still source code that's being downloaded to my environment and it's my browser's job to decide how it should be executed. I would have nothing against a site that sends me source code to be compiled within my computer so it could run inside a sandbox, but I won't like when Facebook starts pushing binaries I should trust won't break out of the sandbox they should respect. You can't easily do static analysis on binaries. And I would love to be able to browse the web on my SPARC, POWER and MIPS boxes. One good reason for JavaScript being slower than C is its typing. If we could write type-strict JavaScript code, it should not compile to less efficient binaries than corresponding C. BTW, incremental compiling has been around since the 80's - code can be compiled as quickly as it can be transferred through HTTP.
- pohl 16y ago
  You can't easily do static analysis on binaries. The binary format in question here is LLVM-BC, which is just a compact representation of LLVM-IR, which is a single-static-assignment representation specifically designed for static analysis. SPARC, POWER and MIPS backends already exist, FWIW.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    Well... This solves one problem.
    - chc 16y ago
      It solves the only problem you brought up in the comment he was responding to, AFAIK. If you meant to point to others, I think you need to be more explicit or people will miss them.
      - rbanffy 16y ago
        So, you would be happy if a banner served through Facebook could push a obfuscated (good guys may well play by the rules, but bad guys will figure out in no time how to circumvent anything LLVM-BC brings to the table) binary blob to be executed in your browser? How much would you trust the LLVM-based sandbox? Well... I wouldn't. In fact, I can't understand why taking more or less the same shortcut to a dead-end Java took a decade-and-half ago is suddenly a good idea and why disagreeing with it means dooming the web to failure.

BonsaiDen 16y ago

> like the ones I listed (games, simulations, video, DSP). Those should not run in a Browser, they should on a real OS (or Emacs). What's next VMWare inside your Browser? Then it's OS -> Browser -> VM -> OS -> Browser... Sorry but just because things are possible, doesn't mean that they should be done...

mahmud 16y ago
but you can't just right-click on a binary executable and "view soure", bro! ~ Seriously, people managed to write successful, cross-platform software without expecting everyone with any kind of gadget or device to run it with one click.
- chc 16y ago
  When was this? Atlantis? I don't remember any point in history where this was simple and commonplace.
CodeMage 16y ago
Games should not run in a browser? That's a funny claim. Try telling that to: 1. Millions of users, who play them happily each day. 2. Sites like Kongregate, Armor Games and Newgrounds, whose business is to publish them. 3. Sites like FlashGameLicense, whose business is to help the business of developing and publishing games that run in browsers. If something can be done, someone will probably try to make a business out of it. If it catches on, then people who say "just because something is possible, doesn't mean it should be done" are wasting their breath.
vilya 16y ago
"Those should not run in a Browser, they should on a real OS (or Emacs)." Why? It was not so long ago that people would have said the same thing about an email client.

cdavid 16y ago

While you're right that memory is the bottleneck in many CPU intensive programs, the idea that you need low level access to circumvent it is far from obvious. For example, several well known people have argued that C makes it more difficult to use memory effectively, because pointers make compiler job so difficult (Fortran still beats C for most numerical benchmarks). I think we are at a point where architectures are so different that even though in theory, controlling memory pattern is potentially more powerful, in practice, it is impossible to do it right except when you can spend insane amount of time on it. The difference between P4 and core duo, for example, is enormous as far as organizing memory accesses. This is exactly like ASM vs C: you can still beat C with ASM, but doing so across all architectures is almost impossible to do it by hand.

rbanffy 16y ago

> JavaScript JITs are already compiling JavaScript to machine code The details of how the interpreter works and of what it interprets are irrelevant to this discussion. It's JavaScript code that's being transported, not the compiled binary. While I agree tools like Closure somewhat obscure the resulting JavaScript, it's still source code that's being downloaded to my environment and it's my browser's job to decide how it should be executed. I would have nothing against a site that sends me source code to be compiled within my computer so it could run inside a sandbox, but I won't like when Facebook starts pushing binaries I should trust won't break out of the sandbox they should respect. You can't easily do static analysis on binaries. And I would love to be able to browse the web on my SPARC, POWER and MIPS boxes. One good reason for JavaScript being slower than C is its typing. If we could write type-strict JavaScript code, it should not compile to less efficient binaries than corresponding C. BTW, incremental compiling has been around since the 80's - code can be compiled as quickly as it can be transferred through HTTP.

pohl 16y ago
You can't easily do static analysis on binaries. The binary format in question here is LLVM-BC, which is just a compact representation of LLVM-IR, which is a single-static-assignment representation specifically designed for static analysis. SPARC, POWER and MIPS backends already exist, FWIW.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Well... This solves one problem.
  - chc 16y ago
    It solves the only problem you brought up in the comment he was responding to, AFAIK. If you meant to point to others, I think you need to be more explicit or people will miss them.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      So, you would be happy if a banner served through Facebook could push a obfuscated (good guys may well play by the rules, but bad guys will figure out in no time how to circumvent anything LLVM-BC brings to the table) binary blob to be executed in your browser? How much would you trust the LLVM-based sandbox? Well... I wouldn't. In fact, I can't understand why taking more or less the same shortcut to a dead-end Java took a decade-and-half ago is suddenly a good idea and why disagreeing with it means dooming the web to failure.