5 ms·
Seems to me a lot of this is possible because developers are lazy and want to shoehorn application delivery and runtime into a system originally designed for sh
by na85 5y ago
Seems to me a lot of this is possible because developers are lazy and want to shoehorn application delivery and runtime into a system originally designed for sharing documents.
Those same developers seem to heavily overlap with the group that loves to shit on FTP and DNS etc., because they were designed for a less adversarial internet. I'm not sure what to make of that cognitive dissonance.
But, maybe browsers as we know them should die and be replaced with something better.
- fluoridation 5y agoWhile I think stuff like Google Docs is practically magic, I agree. I think it'd be a net positive if it wasn't possible to do stuff like that on a browser. Sometimes I wonder how things would have turned out if Java plugins hadn't been security Swiss cheese.
- DarraghBurke 5y agoWould it better for the majority of applications to be native apps that run outside a sandbox with full access to the filesystem? The browser actually gives us more security.
- fluoridation 5y agoThere's no reason why applets couldn't have been sandboxed as much as any browser scripting. If they had taken the role JS now occupies, we might have seen that development.
- gowld 5y agoEven if the application is "delivered", it can still be evil. What's missing is clear attribution of which "app" created the window.
- tenebrisalietum 5y agoThe term "browser" is easier to say than "Javascript/WASM Application And Document Object Model Rendering Engine With Bidirectional-but-mostly-client HTTP Interface". Internet Explorer should definitely be renamed "Application Runtime Engine for ActiveX" though.