4 ms·

Gmail, Google Calendar, and Google Docs are huge JavaScript web apps that run in all modern browsers and have enormous user bases. They form a huge part of Goo

Gmail, Google Calendar, and Google Docs are huge JavaScript web apps that run in all modern browsers and have enormous user bases. They form a huge part of Google's business. Additionally, Google develops, maintains, and promotes popular JavaScript developer tools like Closure Compiler, AngularJS, and the Chrome dev tools. Are you implying that everyone should just shut down all R&D in web technologies that compete with or don't use JavaScript?

jlongster 14y ago
Your last statement is way overstating the original remark about NaCL. Google has definitely been pushing PNaCL as the solution for running large, complex apps that are usually native (like 3d games, and things that require lots of computation) on the web. And there's no way PNaCL is going to be viable in the next decade, it takes way too long for everyone to agree & implement. Gmail, docs, etc are complex, but don't require tons of computation. They just require good web technologies. Google's work in this area is awesome, but that doesn't mean we can't call out PNaCL as a bad technology to push.
- pifflesnort 14y ago
  One of the major reasons PNaCL is "non-viable" are the comments like this one, calling it non-viable, and insisting on a JS-everywhere future. If Mozilla et al spent half as much time trying to work with Google as they spend badmouthing everything that isn't JS, we'd have some solutions by now. These are political problems, not technical ones.
  - khuey 14y ago
    http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4632410 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4632410
    - pifflesnort 14y ago
      Yes, I think that demonstrates my point, given that the author is Brendan Eich, CTO of Mozilla. Mozilla has had years to contribute something meaningful to the conversation, and instead they've consistently badmouthed Google's efforts while watching the meteoric rise of native mobile development. So now they've finally brought asm.js to the table; a Mozilla-flavored common bytecode, which is what we've been wanting for years, and exactly what Eich and Mozilla said was wrong for the web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Native_Client#Reception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Native_Client#Reception Fine -- if using javascript to encode a bytecode is what it takes for Mozilla to actually take the need for a common bytecode seriously (and admit that DOM/JS/HTML/CSS is perhaps not adequate), then I won't look a gift horse in the mouth. I just wish they'd figured out the need for post-JS webapps a little sooner.
gcb0 14y ago
i think his gripe was more with proprietary solutions and not really !javascript, as you imply. what you did would be the same as if i replied to you: Are you implying that everyone should just shut down all R&D in web technologies and just choose between NaCl or ActiveX?

jlongster 14y ago

Your last statement is way overstating the original remark about NaCL. Google has definitely been pushing PNaCL as the solution for running large, complex apps that are usually native (like 3d games, and things that require lots of computation) on the web. And there's no way PNaCL is going to be viable in the next decade, it takes way too long for everyone to agree & implement. Gmail, docs, etc are complex, but don't require tons of computation. They just require good web technologies. Google's work in this area is awesome, but that doesn't mean we can't call out PNaCL as a bad technology to push.

pifflesnort 14y ago
One of the major reasons PNaCL is "non-viable" are the comments like this one, calling it non-viable, and insisting on a JS-everywhere future. If Mozilla et al spent half as much time trying to work with Google as they spend badmouthing everything that isn't JS, we'd have some solutions by now. These are political problems, not technical ones.
- khuey 14y ago
  http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4632410 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4632410
  - pifflesnort 14y ago
    Yes, I think that demonstrates my point, given that the author is Brendan Eich, CTO of Mozilla. Mozilla has had years to contribute something meaningful to the conversation, and instead they've consistently badmouthed Google's efforts while watching the meteoric rise of native mobile development. So now they've finally brought asm.js to the table; a Mozilla-flavored common bytecode, which is what we've been wanting for years, and exactly what Eich and Mozilla said was wrong for the web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Native_Client#Reception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Native_Client#Reception Fine -- if using javascript to encode a bytecode is what it takes for Mozilla to actually take the need for a common bytecode seriously (and admit that DOM/JS/HTML/CSS is perhaps not adequate), then I won't look a gift horse in the mouth. I just wish they'd figured out the need for post-JS webapps a little sooner.

gcb0 14y ago

i think his gripe was more with proprietary solutions and not really !javascript, as you imply. what you did would be the same as if i replied to you: Are you implying that everyone should just shut down all R&D in web technologies and just choose between NaCl or ActiveX?