5 ms·

Even if we don't lose the HTML-centered model, we are probably going to lose control of our browsers. Eventually somebody is going to ship a product that's noth

Even if we don't lose the HTML-centered model, we are probably going to lose control of our browsers. Eventually somebody is going to ship a product that's nothing more than a browser implemented in WASM that runs inside your browser. The "inner browser" won't have content filtering, privacy controls, DOM inspector, or a Javascript debugger (for the Javascript engine running on the "inner browser") that you can interact with. You'll have to agree to let them run arbitrary code on your machine to even view the "website". There will be no "browse w/o Javascript" option in that future. The kind of jerks who liked adding Javascript to block right-clicking, blocking "Paste" into password fields, etc, are going to absolutely love using the browser-in-a-browser product to deliver their "website". For the inevitable replies: Yes-- you can already do this with minified Javascript. WASM, being targeted for performance, is just going to make this kind of asshattery faster.

linuxftw 7y ago
Smart phone apps already do this.
- jhallenworld 7y ago
  Emulate Android or IOS in the browser- that way you only have to write an app, and not bother with a website.. All it will take is for ADK to a have button that produces a wasm version of your app.
  - gmueckl 7y ago
    Unity and UE4 are very close to having exactly this today. There's no big reason why this shouldn't work for apps targetting a readonable subset of Android.
cercatrova 7y ago
This already happens. See Figma: https://www.figma.com/blog/webassembly-cut-figmas-load-time-by-3x/ https://www.figma.com/blog/webassembly-cut-figmas-load-time-... To be honest, it's a unique property of the web for you to be able to easily read the source; however, users of other platforms such as Qt are not expected to read the source. The web is simply moving in the direction of all other UI platforms, so I don't quite understand the outrage. Yes, it sucks, but it'll make apps faster than the Electron mess we have now.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- feanaro 7y ago
  The outrage is because the web isn't simply a "UI platform". That's only one use of it. It's also a document platform. Also, arguments of the form of "X is unique, all others are doing the bad thing" are suspicious to me. This would mean we should cherish and preserve X, bringing the good aspect to other platforms, not devolving it into mediocrity or worse.
IvanK_net 7y ago
It makes no sense to me. You are saying, that instead a 5 kB webpage, you would load 50 MB code, which emulates a browser, just to show you the same webpage? Every webpage pays for the traffic in some way, and everybody tries to save web traffic as much as possible (optimizing images, videos, minifying JS, CSS ...). It makes no sense to expect, that websites would turn the opposite way just for fun. I would be very glad, if you can emulate a computer in a browser, so you can e.g. use VirtualBox or VMWare comfortably in your browser. Still, it will be sandboxed (it can not turn off your computer, or clear your hard drive, etc.). I think the web is the most open, independent, secure and versatile platform today. And I hope it will become even better and more powerful in the future.
- Quarrelsome 7y ago
  > It makes no sense to me. You are saying, that instead a 5 kB webpage, you would load 50 MB code, which emulates a browser, just to show you the same webpage? Have you not worked in tech long? One of my 'favourite' things about one tech stack I once worked on was that someone decided to implement a file-system inside the a database that is stored on the file system. Even better, the database itself effectively just reimplements the features of a database. So we have a file-system storing a database that exposes a completely different database that holds a file system.
  - golemotron 7y ago
    Obligatory: https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death-of-javascript https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death...
- EvanAnderson 7y ago
  Yes. I am saying that some website operators would like to load an entire browser into your client just so they can control the presentation (make sure you're not able to block their ads, control their scripts, etc). I'm not talking about the sandboxed browser being able to "clear your hard drive", etc. I'm talking about users having no real agency when it comes to controlling the presentation of websites. (Sure, it's code running on your computer. You're free to attach a debugger to step thru native code that runs a VM that runs a nested VM that's ultimately running the code you'd actually like to influence. Let me know how that goes for you.) Have you seen JSLinux[1]? [1] - https://bellard.org/jslinux/ https://bellard.org/jslinux/
mahidhar 7y ago
Unfortunately, I must agree with you that there are definitely some very troubling implications to how WebAssembly might be used to build more effective walled gardens on the web. I can easily imagine a "platform" WASM module which acts as a runtime for other WASM modules built by "app" developers. This Platform module can be easily cached by FAANG or other big commercial interests, similar to AMP by Google (maybe even be pre-bundled into the browser?). The only way to discover, download and run these other apps is through this curated Platform module. All this could be rendered through something like the Canvas API instead of the DOM, which again is managed on a low level by the Platform and in turn exposes higher level API's for the Apps. The Platform also has built in support for Ad networks, tracking, etc., which cannot be disabled without disabling the whole ecosystem of apps. And of course, like any good play/app store, it is completely incompatible with anything else, leading to new levels of Balkanization of the web. I hope that this isn't the case, and I'm completely wrong about this. But I just can't shake the feeling that as a community, we are championing WebAssembly as purely a performance win, without considering how big commercial interests might seek to exploit this new technology. Edit: typo with AMP
- oaiey 7y ago
  This platform wasm will come. And it does not You do not need to be evil, especially in the beginning. Java or .NET Runtime and Libraries are a bit heavy for a small web page. And from there it is just the next step to run a base platform like Android user space or a simple runtime like blazor. In the end wasm is a runtime. There were physical Java Processors and I am pretty sure there will be webassembly processors.
  - lightgreen 7y ago
    There were not physical Java processors, because it’s too hard to emulate jvm in hardware. But there were processors with instructions optimized for interpreting jvm bytecode. These would be pretty useless nowadays (for either jvm or wasm) because baseline compiler which translates vm bytecode to native bytecode is easy and more efficient than direct vm support in hardware.
- salawat 7y ago
shadowgovt 7y ago
Well, someone attempting that will have a long row to hoe to get the thing working with the needs of networks with different performance standards, useragents with different screen structures, and users with different accessibility requirements. Browsers are large and complicated software packages for a reason. Best of luck to whoever tries to compete with it in a browser in a browser.
- EvanAnderson 7y ago
  The inner browser doesn't need to be a general purpose browser. It just needs to render the site-owner's content, run their scripts, etc. Once there's an API for WASM to manipulate the DOM accessibility becomes easier.
  - TomMarius 7y ago
    So react native?
thosakwe 7y ago
> Eventually somebody is going to ship a product that's nothing more than a browser implemented in WASM that runs inside your browser Sounds like a slippery slope to me. What makes you think users will be satisfied with load times for something like that, which also probably will have a frustrating-to-use interface?
- sjy 7y ago
  Users seem pretty satisfied with single-page apps. They are slow to load and have frustrating-to-use (inconsistent) interfaces, at least compared to my memory of 1990s desktop software. If users actually cared about performance then software would get faster over time.
- Someone 7y ago
  Consider some company running some web application for their employees that “works best in” IE 6 or, for example, Chrome, but the 2018 version. A third party that offers a way to run that on their iPad at the cost of a one-time 100MB download will find customers. archive.org also might find something like it useful. How else are you going to show old sites in 20 year’s time?
marcosdumay 7y ago
Yes, and for games it will be great. And a mixed bless for web applications. What won't be great are sites that do this to enforce ad viewing. But if it becomes common enough, you can expect ad-blockers to act on the frame-buffer of that virtual browser. Anyway, the most annoying will be the stupid people that do that just because "Even Google does it!" "It's webscale!", or whatever people will be saying 5 years from now.

linuxftw 7y ago

Smart phone apps already do this.

jhallenworld 7y ago
Emulate Android or IOS in the browser- that way you only have to write an app, and not bother with a website.. All it will take is for ADK to a have button that produces a wasm version of your app.
- gmueckl 7y ago
  Unity and UE4 are very close to having exactly this today. There's no big reason why this shouldn't work for apps targetting a readonable subset of Android.

cercatrova 7y ago

This already happens. See Figma: https://www.figma.com/blog/webassembly-cut-figmas-load-time-by-3x/ https://www.figma.com/blog/webassembly-cut-figmas-load-time-... To be honest, it's a unique property of the web for you to be able to easily read the source; however, users of other platforms such as Qt are not expected to read the source. The web is simply moving in the direction of all other UI platforms, so I don't quite understand the outrage. Yes, it sucks, but it'll make apps faster than the Electron mess we have now.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
feanaro 7y ago
The outrage is because the web isn't simply a "UI platform". That's only one use of it. It's also a document platform. Also, arguments of the form of "X is unique, all others are doing the bad thing" are suspicious to me. This would mean we should cherish and preserve X, bringing the good aspect to other platforms, not devolving it into mediocrity or worse.

IvanK_net 7y ago

It makes no sense to me. You are saying, that instead a 5 kB webpage, you would load 50 MB code, which emulates a browser, just to show you the same webpage? Every webpage pays for the traffic in some way, and everybody tries to save web traffic as much as possible (optimizing images, videos, minifying JS, CSS ...). It makes no sense to expect, that websites would turn the opposite way just for fun. I would be very glad, if you can emulate a computer in a browser, so you can e.g. use VirtualBox or VMWare comfortably in your browser. Still, it will be sandboxed (it can not turn off your computer, or clear your hard drive, etc.). I think the web is the most open, independent, secure and versatile platform today. And I hope it will become even better and more powerful in the future.

Quarrelsome 7y ago
> It makes no sense to me. You are saying, that instead a 5 kB webpage, you would load 50 MB code, which emulates a browser, just to show you the same webpage? Have you not worked in tech long? One of my 'favourite' things about one tech stack I once worked on was that someone decided to implement a file-system inside the a database that is stored on the file system. Even better, the database itself effectively just reimplements the features of a database. So we have a file-system storing a database that exposes a completely different database that holds a file system.
- golemotron 7y ago
  Obligatory: https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death-of-javascript https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death...
EvanAnderson 7y ago
Yes. I am saying that some website operators would like to load an entire browser into your client just so they can control the presentation (make sure you're not able to block their ads, control their scripts, etc). I'm not talking about the sandboxed browser being able to "clear your hard drive", etc. I'm talking about users having no real agency when it comes to controlling the presentation of websites. (Sure, it's code running on your computer. You're free to attach a debugger to step thru native code that runs a VM that runs a nested VM that's ultimately running the code you'd actually like to influence. Let me know how that goes for you.) Have you seen JSLinux[1]? [1] - https://bellard.org/jslinux/ https://bellard.org/jslinux/

mahidhar 7y ago

Unfortunately, I must agree with you that there are definitely some very troubling implications to how WebAssembly might be used to build more effective walled gardens on the web. I can easily imagine a "platform" WASM module which acts as a runtime for other WASM modules built by "app" developers. This Platform module can be easily cached by FAANG or other big commercial interests, similar to AMP by Google (maybe even be pre-bundled into the browser?). The only way to discover, download and run these other apps is through this curated Platform module. All this could be rendered through something like the Canvas API instead of the DOM, which again is managed on a low level by the Platform and in turn exposes higher level API's for the Apps. The Platform also has built in support for Ad networks, tracking, etc., which cannot be disabled without disabling the whole ecosystem of apps. And of course, like any good play/app store, it is completely incompatible with anything else, leading to new levels of Balkanization of the web. I hope that this isn't the case, and I'm completely wrong about this. But I just can't shake the feeling that as a community, we are championing WebAssembly as purely a performance win, without considering how big commercial interests might seek to exploit this new technology. Edit: typo with AMP

oaiey 7y ago
This platform wasm will come. And it does not You do not need to be evil, especially in the beginning. Java or .NET Runtime and Libraries are a bit heavy for a small web page. And from there it is just the next step to run a base platform like Android user space or a simple runtime like blazor. In the end wasm is a runtime. There were physical Java Processors and I am pretty sure there will be webassembly processors.
- lightgreen 7y ago
  There were not physical Java processors, because it’s too hard to emulate jvm in hardware. But there were processors with instructions optimized for interpreting jvm bytecode. These would be pretty useless nowadays (for either jvm or wasm) because baseline compiler which translates vm bytecode to native bytecode is easy and more efficient than direct vm support in hardware.
salawat 7y ago

shadowgovt 7y ago

Well, someone attempting that will have a long row to hoe to get the thing working with the needs of networks with different performance standards, useragents with different screen structures, and users with different accessibility requirements. Browsers are large and complicated software packages for a reason. Best of luck to whoever tries to compete with it in a browser in a browser.

EvanAnderson 7y ago
The inner browser doesn't need to be a general purpose browser. It just needs to render the site-owner's content, run their scripts, etc. Once there's an API for WASM to manipulate the DOM accessibility becomes easier.
- TomMarius 7y ago
  So react native?

thosakwe 7y ago

> Eventually somebody is going to ship a product that's nothing more than a browser implemented in WASM that runs inside your browser Sounds like a slippery slope to me. What makes you think users will be satisfied with load times for something like that, which also probably will have a frustrating-to-use interface?

sjy 7y ago
Users seem pretty satisfied with single-page apps. They are slow to load and have frustrating-to-use (inconsistent) interfaces, at least compared to my memory of 1990s desktop software. If users actually cared about performance then software would get faster over time.
Someone 7y ago
Consider some company running some web application for their employees that “works best in” IE 6 or, for example, Chrome, but the 2018 version. A third party that offers a way to run that on their iPad at the cost of a one-time 100MB download will find customers. archive.org also might find something like it useful. How else are you going to show old sites in 20 year’s time?

marcosdumay 7y ago

Yes, and for games it will be great. And a mixed bless for web applications. What won't be great are sites that do this to enforce ad viewing. But if it becomes common enough, you can expect ad-blockers to act on the frame-buffer of that virtual browser. Anyway, the most annoying will be the stupid people that do that just because "Even Google does it!" "It's webscale!", or whatever people will be saying 5 years from now.