4 ms·

You're incorrect, that's not how NaCl or Dart were developed. They were developed in secret years before released. They're alpha versions had all of the fundame

You're incorrect, that's not how NaCl or Dart were developed. They were developed in secret years before released. They're alpha versions had all of the fundamentals established when finally presented to the public.

derefr 14y ago
I don't see how the way in which something is developed before its first release has any bearing on whether its current development is community-driven. Everything was designed in secret at some point: within the head of whoever was thinking about it, before they decided to start talking about it.
- MatthewPhillips 14y ago
  > I don't see how the way in which something is developed before its first release has any bearing on whether its current development is community-driven. You don't? Go look at the nacl commit logs and count how many non-Google employees are contributing. That it was developed in secret is precisely the reason for this (not because they are against outside contributors today). If you develop a supposedly open technology in secret it either needs to be 1) really good or 2) really popular. XHR is successful because it fits into both. Whatever you may feel about NaCl, Microsoft, Apple and Mozilla don't think it's good.
  - derefr 14y ago
    > Whatever you may feel about NaCl, Microsoft, Apple and Mozilla don't think it's good. Microsoft and Apple have very obvious reasons to avoid supporting NaCl, whatever they think of it--it is the last step in nullifying the relevance of Operating Systems. A browser that runs code at native speed is an operating system, fullstop. Mozilla is, as far as I can tell, just doing that same overly-idealist thing that Debian and the FSF do, where anything that's not specifically "the best kind of open" (GPLed) is a horrible monstrosity not to be allowed to besmirch the beauty of the web. Meanwhile, I don't expect to see a Photoshop or a Crysis for Firefox OS any time soon ;)
    - pcwalton 14y ago
      "Mozilla is, as far as I can tell, just doing that same overly-idealist thing that Debian and the FSF do, where anything that's not specifically "the best kind of open" (GPLed) is a horrible monstrosity not to be allowed to besmirch the beauty of the web. Meanwhile, I don't expect to see a Photoshop or a Crysis for Firefox OS any time soon ;)" No, Mozilla is pushing asm.js as the solution for Photoshop or Crysis, because it's (IMHO) a technically better solution with better survival characteristics (backwards compatibility) than NaCl.
    - MatthewPhillips 14y ago
      No, Mozilla legitimately doesn't think NaCl is a good idea and thinks they can achieve similar results with asm.js which has a far lower maintenance burden. Google is quick to come up with ideas that only they have the engineering budget to maintain.
    - ableal 14y ago
      > A browser that runs code at native speed is an operating system, fullstop. You could give some people a stroke with that statement. They probably would mind that a supposedly sandboxed browser is fully controlling the hardware.
      - saraid216 14y ago
        Chrome OS?

derefr 14y ago

I don't see how the way in which something is developed before its first release has any bearing on whether its current development is community-driven. Everything was designed in secret at some point: within the head of whoever was thinking about it, before they decided to start talking about it.

MatthewPhillips 14y ago
> I don't see how the way in which something is developed before its first release has any bearing on whether its current development is community-driven. You don't? Go look at the nacl commit logs and count how many non-Google employees are contributing. That it was developed in secret is precisely the reason for this (not because they are against outside contributors today). If you develop a supposedly open technology in secret it either needs to be 1) really good or 2) really popular. XHR is successful because it fits into both. Whatever you may feel about NaCl, Microsoft, Apple and Mozilla don't think it's good.
- derefr 14y ago
  > Whatever you may feel about NaCl, Microsoft, Apple and Mozilla don't think it's good. Microsoft and Apple have very obvious reasons to avoid supporting NaCl, whatever they think of it--it is the last step in nullifying the relevance of Operating Systems. A browser that runs code at native speed is an operating system, fullstop. Mozilla is, as far as I can tell, just doing that same overly-idealist thing that Debian and the FSF do, where anything that's not specifically "the best kind of open" (GPLed) is a horrible monstrosity not to be allowed to besmirch the beauty of the web. Meanwhile, I don't expect to see a Photoshop or a Crysis for Firefox OS any time soon ;)
  - pcwalton 14y ago
    "Mozilla is, as far as I can tell, just doing that same overly-idealist thing that Debian and the FSF do, where anything that's not specifically "the best kind of open" (GPLed) is a horrible monstrosity not to be allowed to besmirch the beauty of the web. Meanwhile, I don't expect to see a Photoshop or a Crysis for Firefox OS any time soon ;)" No, Mozilla is pushing asm.js as the solution for Photoshop or Crysis, because it's (IMHO) a technically better solution with better survival characteristics (backwards compatibility) than NaCl.
  - MatthewPhillips 14y ago
    No, Mozilla legitimately doesn't think NaCl is a good idea and thinks they can achieve similar results with asm.js which has a far lower maintenance burden. Google is quick to come up with ideas that only they have the engineering budget to maintain.
  - ableal 14y ago
    > A browser that runs code at native speed is an operating system, fullstop. You could give some people a stroke with that statement. They probably would mind that a supposedly sandboxed browser is fully controlling the hardware.
    - saraid216 14y ago
      Chrome OS?