7 ms·
What is the benefit of replacing the browser though?
by TekMol 7y ago
What is the benefit of replacing the browser though?
- the_mitsuhiko 7y agoThere is no browser to replace. Many of us are trying to look into WASM for loadable modules or entire binaries.
- pjmlp 7y agoI thought I already could do that since the late 80's.
- TomMarius 7y agoI tried and ran into many (well known, at this point) problems. WASM solves them.
- wffurr 7y agoWith what? lisp? Java? MSIL? https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/11/announcing-the-bytecode-al.. https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/11/announcing-the-bytecode-al.... "secure-by-default foundations for native development that are portable and scalable."
- pjmlp 7y agoYou can compile Hearbleed to WASM, secure by default, as long C or any of its derived languages are not used.
- wffurr 7y agoSure, you can build a flimsy deathtrap house on top of a solid foundation in a lot of contexts. But if the foundation is unsound, it doesn't matter if your Ada is formally verified or not.
- pjmlp 7y agoAt least the Ada folks acknowledge that the language isn't perfect, and don't pretend they were the very first one on its field.
- wffurr 7y agoI don't see anyone pretending any such thing about WebAssembly or WASI. If anything they are drawing on the decades of experience with bytecode formats and security research.
- pjmlp 7y agoApparently not, otherwise bounds checking inside of the same linear memory segment would actually be supported. Likewise, they wouldn't "forget" the formats that already had support for languages like C when talking about what is "new" with WebAssembly.
- zozbot234 7y ago> bounds checking inside of the same linear memory segment That can be supported in the source language.
- pjmlp 7y agoWhich is meaningless for module consumers and hardly any different from native processes.
- zozbot234 7y agoAIUI, wasm does support using multiple linear memory segments at the same time. You don't get that on native processes short of using memory segmentation, which no modern architecture supports.
- 7y ago
- imtringued 7y agoI'm not sure I understand what you're saying. There are two core principles behind WebAssembly. First of all you can run low level programming languages like C on any architecture. This is possible if the code is available and you are willing to compile the C code before installing the application (see gentoo). Secondly the libraries/APIs that the program depends on must be available. What you're saying is that every vendor shipped their software with source code and only used cross platform APIs. Is that right?
- gdxhyrd 7y agoEh, no. Vendors everywhere will package things for your architecture and give you binaries. That is how it has always been done and is still done. Yes, you can do it differently with an IL, but that isn't new either (Java, .NET, etc.).
- pjmlp 7y ago> First of all you can run low level programming languages like C on any architecture Just like with TIMI, MSIL, EM, ADF, TendDRA, PNaCL among others. > What you're saying is that every vendor shipped their software with source code and only used cross platform APIs. Is that right? Rather that this is nothing new, and the formats listed above, already offered the same capabilities, without the same marketing.
- the_mitsuhiko 7y agoI don’t see how asmjs/wasm’s marketing would be much different to the one of pnacl/nacl. It’s just fundamentally better and that’s why people are excited.
- pjmlp 7y agoSo much better that PNaCL still outperforms WASM. https://www.pdftron.com/blog/wasm/wasm-vs-pnacl/ https://www.pdftron.com/blog/wasm/wasm-vs-pnacl/ And it doesn't offer any significant security improvements, in spite of its marketing, compiling Heartbleed into WASM is still possible.
- jarfil 7y agoThe same as from using Electron, but a step further: less overhead from unneeded browser features, ability to lock the user into a kiosk/fullscreen mode, while most of the code is still reusable.
- aurosul 7y agoYou mean like standard desktop application we had until the browser took over?
- TomMarius 7y agoThere are significant differences between standard desktop applications, Electron applications, progressive web applications, isomorphic/universal applications and so on. Usually the business case decides. If you want people to make more standard desktop applications, you should figure out a way to make it work for the common Electron app business case. Or stop throwing baseless shit in their general direction just because they've chosen a technology that does not meet your purity requirements. I'm very sure everyone in the community agrees Electron is not ideal.
- The_rationalist 7y agoElectron is the least worst technology we have for building expressive 2D GUIs. Carlo and others are just an incremental improvement. Every other GUI libraries are order of magnitude inferiors except if you just want to look like windows default utilities.
- layoutIfNeeded 7y agoImagine if apps would blend in with the host OS! The horror!
- TomMarius 7y agoSorry but the founder wants his specific UI, I can't do anything about it, my job is to do it.