> The difference is that NaCl applications can be trivially > recompiled for a new architecture. Except they can't, in many cases. Recompiling for a new archi

> The difference is that NaCl applications can be trivially > recompiled for a new architecture. Except they can't, in many cases. Recompiling for a new architecture is rarely trivial. More importantly, there would be no impetus to recompile for a new arch with low market share, so its users would be just as locked out of NaCl stuff as if it _were_ trivial to recompile. > so the LLVM approach is greatly preferred. Except LLVM isn't architecture-agnostic, in general.... just doing LLVM lets you abstract away some aspects of architectures, but by no means all. > It's a way to deliver applications over the web Sure. But it would sure suck if you had to get Google to recompile gmail for your new architecture in order for your users to have access to it, as opposed to just writing a JS interpreter or JIT for your architecture! And gmail and its ilk are _exactly_ what NaCl is trying to target.