3 ms·
> Right, so by 2040 we can't distribute an application without rebuilding it for 5 or 6 different architectures 5 or 6? 2040? All we've seen over the past 20 y
by pifflesnort 14y ago
> Right, so by 2040 we can't distribute an application without rebuilding it for 5 or 6 different architectures
5 or 6? 2040? All we've seen over the past 20 years is the gradual reduction of in-use architectures down to a few winning players. We're even seeing it in the SoC/MCU space now, where custom architectures are being replaced with ARM.
I expect to continue to see evolution and simplification, not revolution. If there is a revolution, well, we'll want to take advantage of the power of that fancy new hardware, I suppose.
> one of which is a bitcode format that doesn't even run at native speeds, despite the name.
PNaCL generates native code from the bitcode.
[response to your edit]
> You're basically demonstrating the entire problem with the Native Client camp - you're so myopically focused on the immediate needs and the immediate environment (arm! x86! games! performance this year!) that you have absolutely no appreciation for the trail of destruction being left for future generations.
I would say that you're demonstrating why the web camp continues to fail so horribly to move past simple applications: you're so myopically focused on the ideology of tomorrow over providing a great user experience today.
In fact, I day say you're leaving a far worse trail of destruction, because web applications are the ultimate expression of always-on DRM. When the servers for your "apps" disappear in a few years time, the applications will disappear right along with them -- forever.
How is the Internet Archive going to archive your webapp?
> You have Pepper which is a huge bastardized, specialized clone of all WebGL/HTML 5 audio/media APIs
That's an overstatement of Pepper. It's quite simple -- far more so than the massive browser stack that WebGL+HTML5 brings with it.
In fact, Pepper is simple and constrained enough that someone other than an existing browser vendor or major corporation could actually implement and support a standalone implementation of it. By contrast, producing a compatible browser is such an enormous undertaking that even companies like Opera are giving up and tracking WebKit.
- bzbarsky 14y agoLast I checked, Pepper was full of underdefined stuff that depended on details of Chrome internals. So no, it's not "simple and constrained" enough that you can implement it without reverse-engineering said internals....
- pifflesnort 14y agoAnything in particular? I eyeballed the API docs recently and didn't see anything so frightening, but you may have more in-depth evaluation: https://developers.google.com/native-client/peppercpp/inherits Google has also stated that they're open to re-evaluating and reworking the API.
- bzbarsky 14y agoA simple example: What happens if negative values are passed for the top_left argument of Graphics2D::PaintImageData? The API documentation doesn't say. I just picked a class and function at random.... That sort of thing is all over the API.
- hosay123 14y ago>> You're so myopically focused on the ideology of tomorrow over providing a great user experience today. > Through ActiveX Technologies, today's static Web pages come alive with a new generation of active content, including animation, 3-D virtual reality, video and other multimedia content. ActiveX Technologies embrace Internet standards and will be delivered on multiple platforms, giving users a rich, open framework for innovation while taking full advantage of their investments in applications, tools and source code. "ActiveX brings together the best of the Internet and the best of the PC," said Paul Maritz, group vice president of the platforms group at Microsoft. "Users want the richest, most compelling content delivered through the ubiquitous Internet." — Microsoft press release, March 1996. We've seen this all before, and it was as much of a land grab using similar "user experience" excuses then as it is now. And despite it all, everything from this press release is possible with open technologies today already. Now we come to address the performance issue, and platform proponents (let's drop the pretence – platform shills) continue to fiercely reject it, because providing a good user experience was never the original agenda. I'm deeply reminded of the leaked internal DART e-mail ( https://gist.github.com/paulmillr/1208618 https://gist.github.com/paulmillr/1208618 ) where as much ink was expended on marketshare as it was on technical issues.
- pifflesnort 14y agoThis is a false comparison. ActiveX was technologically flawed: it was specific to Microsoft Windows, and it was insecure. NaCL is secure and portable, without sacrificing the user experience today. Indirectly referring to me as a platform shill is unwarranted. The reason that I argue so strenuously for maximizing performance is simply that performance improves user experience. > I'm deeply reminded of the leaked internal DART e-mail ( https://gist.github.com/paulmillr/1208618 https://gist.github.com/paulmillr/1208618 ) where as much ink was expended on marketshare as it was on technical issues. I've read the whole memo, and I don't understand what your complaint is at all. Google seems to be focused on actually improving the web as an application development target, and making it competitive with modern platforms.
- hosay123 14y agoBy your own words Native Client is technically flawed: it's specific to x86 and ARM (and whatever other vaporware platforms they promise "next week" – PNaCl has been due for years already), and removing the VM, it's also insecure. So basically Native Client is ActiveX inside a VM.