4 ms·
> There’s no reason to specify access to the DOM for webassembly since you can grant that access from JS. There are reasons. If I could write web apps in a dif
by als0 6y ago
> There’s no reason to specify access to the DOM for webassembly since you can grant that access from JS.
There are reasons. If I could write web apps in a different language without having to use any JS, I would. It would be wonderful to be able to pick whatever language you want, compile it, and then deploy it. Having a JS bridge just seems like a clunky workaround that you have to live with.
> That’s great from a trust perspective because it means you can use a binary blob with confidence that it can’t do anything it isn't explicitly allowed to.
JavaScript is already sandboxed and can access only what you allow it to. Why have a sandbox within a sandbox?
- danielheath 6y ago> Having a JS bridge just seems like a clunky workaround that you have to live with. It's 100 lines of code that you write once and never touch again. Not especially hard to live with VS having a fixed spec that can't evolve over time. > JavaScript is already sandboxed and can access only what you allow it to. Why have a sandbox within a sandbox? Javascript can access only what the user grants it access to. Within that set, WebAssembly can access only what the site author grants it access to. There are quite a few good reasons to want nesting sandboxes. Hell, that's my favorite thing about Lua (a language I would otherwise avoid).