4 ms·

On the contrary, this very much follows the typical mentality we've seen with the evolution of the web. It's one more example of throwing in yet another layer

On the contrary, this very much follows the typical mentality we've seen with the evolution of the web. It's one more example of throwing in yet another layer when every other layer has proven to be insufficient. And it's another example of trying to once again twist JavaScript into something it isn't very good at doing. Once again, like so many web technologies before it, this will cause waste for years to come. There will be a huge waste of time for users who sit there waiting for slow code to execute. There'll be more wasted time and effort for developers stuck dealing with the messes that this will create. It's clear that a proper VM of some sort would be useful in today's browsers. Trying to build this upon some awful subset of JavaScript is not the right way to do it.

simonlc 14y ago
I agree. There's absolutely no reason to have photoshop in the browser. If you want to sync your files with 'the cloud' you don't need a browser for that.
- kayoone 14y ago
  well id personally love to use my desktop as i left it off with a click of a button on any pc/tablet that has a browser. Its not a big pain but it would make my life easier!
- VikingCoder 14y ago
  The browser is now an operating system (as Chromium proves). Photoshop is welcome to run on any operating system. Photoshop on a Chrome Pixel, for instance, makes a lot of sense.
  - camus 14y ago
    the Pixel makes little sense to start with unless you enjoy vendor locking.
    - VikingCoder 14y ago
      I don't understand your statement at all. The only thing I'm locked into is Chromium, and even that I can replace.
      - 4ad 14y ago
        The only thing happens to be every thing, and once you replace it the whole point becomes moot.
        VikingCoder 14y ago
        So, imagine the list of operating systems that you believe it makes sense to run Photoshop on. I'd like to add Chromium to your list. And your answer is... that... "vendor lock-in"? I'm sorry, but you're making zero sense.
phpnode 14y ago
ugh. I am so sick of this "build a proper VM" wailing. It is such a naive and ignorant position. It completely ignores the reality of the market. JavaScript is dominant, it is fast, it runs on basically every device, browser vendors are deeply invested in it and you want to throw all that away and start afresh? ASM.js is a realistic way to get better performance today, not in the 10 years or so it would take for a new platform to reach acceptable adoption rates. And who's to say that some new "proper" VM wouldn't end up with warts like JS has anyway?
- PommeDeTerre 14y ago
  What you're saying is contradictory. If JavaScript is already "fast", then why the need for something like this "to get better performance today"? If JavaScript is "dominant", then why is technology like this needed, mainly to enable developers to use non-JavaScript languages? The market is speaking, and it's saying that JavaScript needs to go. Besides, there are numerous proven VMs and runtimes that could either be used directly, or at least used as a model if a new system is needed. NaCl and PNaCl have already shown one much better approach that is possible. Your "10 years" estimate is not based on reality. And frankly, no, I don't think any proper VM or runtime would ever end up as bad as JavaScript is today. No other language, aside from perhaps PHP, exhibits so many inherent, fundamental flaws. It would take significant effort (and ignorance) to duplicate the same degree of mistake and flaw.
  - niggler 14y ago
    "I don't think any proper VM or runtime would ever end up as bad as JavaScript" Flash? Silverlight? ActiveX?
  - criley 14y ago
    >"If JavaScript is already "fast", then why the need for something like this "to get better performance today"? This feels obtuse -- obviously JS today is faster than it's ever been, but we want native c performance out of it. Do you have a in-browser VM solution today that can do complex, GPU-powered full 3D on every platform? Then your VM solution is already inferior to javascript and will need significant time, money and development to even catch up to javascripts current level of "fast". (Using, of course, "game" performance as a benchmark for the vague term "fast") >"The market is speaking, and it's saying that JavaScript needs to go. What? How do you rationalize this? Every major browser supports it to their core and most are working on dramatic imporvements for their implementations. Every mobile device supports it natively. Every computer I've seen in the past decade supports it. The market is speaking? Where? Where is the market speaking? What devices are without javascript? What browsers don't support javascript? I think you are confusing the "market" for "a small subset of a-typical vocal developers".

simonlc 14y ago

I agree. There's absolutely no reason to have photoshop in the browser. If you want to sync your files with 'the cloud' you don't need a browser for that.

kayoone 14y ago
well id personally love to use my desktop as i left it off with a click of a button on any pc/tablet that has a browser. Its not a big pain but it would make my life easier!
VikingCoder 14y ago
The browser is now an operating system (as Chromium proves). Photoshop is welcome to run on any operating system. Photoshop on a Chrome Pixel, for instance, makes a lot of sense.
- camus 14y ago
  the Pixel makes little sense to start with unless you enjoy vendor locking.
  - VikingCoder 14y ago
    I don't understand your statement at all. The only thing I'm locked into is Chromium, and even that I can replace.
    - 4ad 14y ago
      The only thing happens to be every thing, and once you replace it the whole point becomes moot.
      - VikingCoder 14y ago
        So, imagine the list of operating systems that you believe it makes sense to run Photoshop on. I'd like to add Chromium to your list. And your answer is... that... "vendor lock-in"? I'm sorry, but you're making zero sense.

phpnode 14y ago

ugh. I am so sick of this "build a proper VM" wailing. It is such a naive and ignorant position. It completely ignores the reality of the market. JavaScript is dominant, it is fast, it runs on basically every device, browser vendors are deeply invested in it and you want to throw all that away and start afresh? ASM.js is a realistic way to get better performance today, not in the 10 years or so it would take for a new platform to reach acceptable adoption rates. And who's to say that some new "proper" VM wouldn't end up with warts like JS has anyway?

PommeDeTerre 14y ago
What you're saying is contradictory. If JavaScript is already "fast", then why the need for something like this "to get better performance today"? If JavaScript is "dominant", then why is technology like this needed, mainly to enable developers to use non-JavaScript languages? The market is speaking, and it's saying that JavaScript needs to go. Besides, there are numerous proven VMs and runtimes that could either be used directly, or at least used as a model if a new system is needed. NaCl and PNaCl have already shown one much better approach that is possible. Your "10 years" estimate is not based on reality. And frankly, no, I don't think any proper VM or runtime would ever end up as bad as JavaScript is today. No other language, aside from perhaps PHP, exhibits so many inherent, fundamental flaws. It would take significant effort (and ignorance) to duplicate the same degree of mistake and flaw.
- niggler 14y ago
  "I don't think any proper VM or runtime would ever end up as bad as JavaScript" Flash? Silverlight? ActiveX?
- criley 14y ago
  >"If JavaScript is already "fast", then why the need for something like this "to get better performance today"? This feels obtuse -- obviously JS today is faster than it's ever been, but we want native c performance out of it. Do you have a in-browser VM solution today that can do complex, GPU-powered full 3D on every platform? Then your VM solution is already inferior to javascript and will need significant time, money and development to even catch up to javascripts current level of "fast". (Using, of course, "game" performance as a benchmark for the vague term "fast") >"The market is speaking, and it's saying that JavaScript needs to go. What? How do you rationalize this? Every major browser supports it to their core and most are working on dramatic imporvements for their implementations. Every mobile device supports it natively. Every computer I've seen in the past decade supports it. The market is speaking? Where? Where is the market speaking? What devices are without javascript? What browsers don't support javascript? I think you are confusing the "market" for "a small subset of a-typical vocal developers".