> What I want is to /eventually/ get PNaCl Well, NaCl is in no way a step towards that. They are completely separate technologies: One is a modified gcc compil

> What I want is to /eventually/ get PNaCl Well, NaCl is in no way a step towards that. They are completely separate technologies: One is a modified gcc compiler and custom validator in the browser, the other is a modified LLVM compiler and another modified LLVM compiler in the browser. The only similarity between them is the name, and some of the SFI approaches they utilize. But their code, potential spec for standardization some day, startup times, portability etc. are entirely different. Supporting NaCl now would not help out PNaCl in any way. (In fact, the opposite could be argued.) > But, building JS into the world's VM because of the asteroid-like inertia behind JS is frustrating in a similar way to watching Intel bolt stuff on to a pocket calculator CPU (8086) until we get a CoreI7. It obviously /can/ work, but... First thing, I do understand your frustration. I feel it too. But JS isn't just there because of inertia. There is no other valid option, all the proposals have major flaws, either technical or legal. JS also has its flaws, to be sure. But since the others are not clearly better (running faster, but only on certain CPUs is not better), JS will win because it does have inertia.