4 ms·
> If all NaCl apps would contain PNaCl/x86/ARM binaries I don't see a disadvantage compared to compiling other languages down to JavaScript (which is just as un
by azakai 14y ago
> If all NaCl apps would contain PNaCl/x86/ARM binaries I don't see a disadvantage compared to compiling other languages down to JavaScript (which is just as unreadable/proprietary).
Even if PNaCl worked today, and even if it gave good performance and portability, it would still not be standardized. The only way to get PNaCl into a new browser would be to use the current implementation (which defines what it is).
Having that implementation open source is a good thing. But it isn't as good as JavaScript which has a standard and multiple independent implementations. If you want to write a JS engine in Haskell, for example, you can do that. You can't do that with NaCl or PNaCl, you must use the existing code as is.
- drivebyacct2 14y agoSo write another new implementation? That's like saying (the first JS engine) is the only one that exists, so every other browser must also use it.
- azakai 14y agoThere is a standard for JavaScript, a spec to implement. And new features in the JS language evolve out of a standards process that involves all the browser makers (as well as others). As a result, you can write a new implementation of it, and people do. There is no standard or spec for NaCl, PNaCl or PPAPI. Those things are still being developed, and they change a lot (talk to people that develop for that API to get an idea of how things can change with each 6-week update of Chrome). To implement those, you need to basically "do what Google's implementation does." Trying to track that large and complex - and changing - implementation is practically impossible.