4 ms·

We at Mozilla don't have $2M and a year to spare, but you're wrong: we've assessed doing Pepper with high fidelity (not porting chromium and duplicating all the

We at Mozilla don't have $2M and a year to spare, but you're wrong: we've assessed doing Pepper with high fidelity (not porting chromium and duplicating all the DOM and other browser API implementations). It's more like $10M and multiple elapsed years to get to Chrome parity, assuming Chrome doesn't keep evolving and put us on a treadmill. But then, I'm just the guy managing engineering and worrying about budget at Mozilla. Maybe you have greater skills. Where do you work? Anyway, Pepper is big, with over a thousand methods among all the interfaces that are "specified" only by C++ implementation code we cannot port. We have a DOM implementation already, for example. So you cannot escape the fact that Pepper is "and also", not "instead of" -- there's no savings, it is purely added-cost, and significant cost. I'm almost the only guy who will say this on HN, but as far as I can tell, Microsoft and Apple are on the same page. Maciej Stachowiak of Apple has agreed on HN, for what it's worth: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4648045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4648045 Enough whining about Mozilla not doing Pepper. Let's get back to asm.js. It looks like V8 will implement the optimizations for "use asm": http://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=2599 http://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=2599. Also, Epic is just the first big game publisher we are working with. Epic folks have confirmed again just this week that they won't do NaCl, there's no benefit to something CWS-only. But they are super-excited about cross-browser web-wide reach with asm.js and browser-hosted C++-sourced games. That's the PNaCl output format and runtime for Google to collaborate on. /be

pifflesnort 14y ago
> It's more like $10M and multiple elapsed years to get to Chrome parity, assuming Chrome doesn't keep evolving and put us on a treadmill. So you don't believe Google's offers to work with external implementors? > But then, I'm just the guy managing engineering and worrying about budget at Mozilla. Maybe you have greater skills. Where do you work? I run a systems programming consulting shop. We focus on low-level OS/driver and VM projects, with application development making up the remainder of our work. In theory, reliable estimates are my livelihood, and I have a very vested interest in the future of the platforms that we will have to develop for. I'm very concerned about the market requiring us to develop apps for a Mozilla platform. > Microsoft and Apple are on the same page What reason do they have to roll out something that helps Google undercut their vertical platform/app markets? If NaCL is 'too good', then it threatens their business. Take that for what it means in terms of asm.js optimization adoption. > Epic folks have confirmed again just this week that they won't do NaCl, there's no benefit to something CWS-only. CWS-only and Chrome-only are again, oddly, something you have a hand in. Google pushed out beta PNaCL tools, and CWS-only has primarily been (rightfully) pending PNaCL.
- BrendanEich 14y ago
  > So you don't believe Google's offers to work with external implementors? I wasn't born yesterday. Microsoft is patching WebKit to support Pointer Events. Strange days, but even this "help" does not mean Pointer Events should win (or lose -- it's neutral in standards terms, at most helpful to show implementation feasibility and quality, if possible). Why do you distrust Apple and Microsoft and ascribe bad motives to them based on their commercial interests, but fault Mozilla for not jumping on Google's Pepper treadmill like a good little-brother caricature? Google has commercial interests too, and they have spent >$1B a year on Chrome -- including advertising and bundling that directly targets Firefox users. (It's amazing we are still alive, and possibly even growing desktop share.) You are surely right that some amount of competitive pressure will be required to get asm.js optimized in all engines. Ditto for WebGL in IE, and enabled in Safari. But cooperation between Chrome and Firefox is already happening on both asm.js and WebGL, so between these "coopetition" pincers, I bet we'll prevail. A hopeful sign regarding WebGL in IE11, assuming it is legit: http://fremycompany.com/BG/2013/Internet-Explorer-11-rsquo-s-leaked-build-395/ http://fremycompany.com/BG/2013/Internet-Explorer-11-rsquo-s... Anyway, let's assume everyone has equally good motives, since Google is not any less commercial than Microsoft or Apple these days. Pepper is still too costly for others to swallow even with offers of "help", and therefore losing -- it is not even in the race. asm.js and evolved Web APIs (which developers need anyway) are winning. Evil-me on my Throne of Skulls didn't ordain this outcome. It is unfolding before our eyes across browsers, developers, and very pragmatic third parties including big game/game-engine publishers. (But I am laughing a Dr. Evil laugh, on my Skull island. :-P) /be
  - pifflesnort 14y ago
    > Why do you distrust Apple and Microsoft and ascribe bad motives to them based on their commercial interests, but fault Mozilla for not jumping on Google's Pepper treadmill like a good little-brother caricature? I don't distrust them, or ascribe bad motives. I ascribe motives that align with their economic interests -- it doesn't matter if they're bad or good. > Google has commercial interests too, and they have spent >$1B a year on Chrome -- including advertising and bundling that directly targets Firefox users. (It's amazing we are still alive, and possibly even growing desktop share.) How much does Google spend on Firefox's search deal? What do you see as Google's commercial motive with Chrome? My reading (in the context that I have some family that works on Chrome) is that their primary interest was ensuring that they could help push the web forward, and not be beholden to external interests in doing so. They have an interest in open platforms insofar as it gives them leverage over the much more strongly established platform players (eg, Microsoft, Apple). > asm.js and evolved Web APIs (which developers need anyway) are winning. The interesting thing is that if asm.js has sufficient adoption, the 'web' part of the equation may very well not matter at all. If Google maintains their efforts on (P)NaCL and can provide better performance, end implementors may target both asm.js and NaCL, with shims for platform-specific functionality (not unlike most game development today). Once you're doing that, you can also target other native platforms with the same code and tooling. So I don't think asm.js is all bad. Ironically, it could very well be the escape route from JS/HTML/CSS/DOM that we've all been praying for ever since the idea of the web app came into being. Not because it's the best technical solution, but since when has technical correctness outweighed market forces? > Evil-me on my Throne of Skulls didn't ordain this outcome. Of course not. But "evil you" certainly has a hand in it. There are only 4 real players in the browser market, and you're one of them. In fact, you're the one that decided to ignore what Google has been doing and invest in asm.js to begin with, so divesting any claim in the role of asm.js's possible ascendency is a bit of a stretch.

pifflesnort 14y ago

> It's more like $10M and multiple elapsed years to get to Chrome parity, assuming Chrome doesn't keep evolving and put us on a treadmill. So you don't believe Google's offers to work with external implementors? > But then, I'm just the guy managing engineering and worrying about budget at Mozilla. Maybe you have greater skills. Where do you work? I run a systems programming consulting shop. We focus on low-level OS/driver and VM projects, with application development making up the remainder of our work. In theory, reliable estimates are my livelihood, and I have a very vested interest in the future of the platforms that we will have to develop for. I'm very concerned about the market requiring us to develop apps for a Mozilla platform. > Microsoft and Apple are on the same page What reason do they have to roll out something that helps Google undercut their vertical platform/app markets? If NaCL is 'too good', then it threatens their business. Take that for what it means in terms of asm.js optimization adoption. > Epic folks have confirmed again just this week that they won't do NaCl, there's no benefit to something CWS-only. CWS-only and Chrome-only are again, oddly, something you have a hand in. Google pushed out beta PNaCL tools, and CWS-only has primarily been (rightfully) pending PNaCL.

BrendanEich 14y ago
> So you don't believe Google's offers to work with external implementors? I wasn't born yesterday. Microsoft is patching WebKit to support Pointer Events. Strange days, but even this "help" does not mean Pointer Events should win (or lose -- it's neutral in standards terms, at most helpful to show implementation feasibility and quality, if possible). Why do you distrust Apple and Microsoft and ascribe bad motives to them based on their commercial interests, but fault Mozilla for not jumping on Google's Pepper treadmill like a good little-brother caricature? Google has commercial interests too, and they have spent >$1B a year on Chrome -- including advertising and bundling that directly targets Firefox users. (It's amazing we are still alive, and possibly even growing desktop share.) You are surely right that some amount of competitive pressure will be required to get asm.js optimized in all engines. Ditto for WebGL in IE, and enabled in Safari. But cooperation between Chrome and Firefox is already happening on both asm.js and WebGL, so between these "coopetition" pincers, I bet we'll prevail. A hopeful sign regarding WebGL in IE11, assuming it is legit: http://fremycompany.com/BG/2013/Internet-Explorer-11-rsquo-s-leaked-build-395/ http://fremycompany.com/BG/2013/Internet-Explorer-11-rsquo-s... Anyway, let's assume everyone has equally good motives, since Google is not any less commercial than Microsoft or Apple these days. Pepper is still too costly for others to swallow even with offers of "help", and therefore losing -- it is not even in the race. asm.js and evolved Web APIs (which developers need anyway) are winning. Evil-me on my Throne of Skulls didn't ordain this outcome. It is unfolding before our eyes across browsers, developers, and very pragmatic third parties including big game/game-engine publishers. (But I am laughing a Dr. Evil laugh, on my Skull island. :-P) /be
- pifflesnort 14y ago
  > Why do you distrust Apple and Microsoft and ascribe bad motives to them based on their commercial interests, but fault Mozilla for not jumping on Google's Pepper treadmill like a good little-brother caricature? I don't distrust them, or ascribe bad motives. I ascribe motives that align with their economic interests -- it doesn't matter if they're bad or good. > Google has commercial interests too, and they have spent >$1B a year on Chrome -- including advertising and bundling that directly targets Firefox users. (It's amazing we are still alive, and possibly even growing desktop share.) How much does Google spend on Firefox's search deal? What do you see as Google's commercial motive with Chrome? My reading (in the context that I have some family that works on Chrome) is that their primary interest was ensuring that they could help push the web forward, and not be beholden to external interests in doing so. They have an interest in open platforms insofar as it gives them leverage over the much more strongly established platform players (eg, Microsoft, Apple). > asm.js and evolved Web APIs (which developers need anyway) are winning. The interesting thing is that if asm.js has sufficient adoption, the 'web' part of the equation may very well not matter at all. If Google maintains their efforts on (P)NaCL and can provide better performance, end implementors may target both asm.js and NaCL, with shims for platform-specific functionality (not unlike most game development today). Once you're doing that, you can also target other native platforms with the same code and tooling. So I don't think asm.js is all bad. Ironically, it could very well be the escape route from JS/HTML/CSS/DOM that we've all been praying for ever since the idea of the web app came into being. Not because it's the best technical solution, but since when has technical correctness outweighed market forces? > Evil-me on my Throne of Skulls didn't ordain this outcome. Of course not. But "evil you" certainly has a hand in it. There are only 4 real players in the browser market, and you're one of them. In fact, you're the one that decided to ignore what Google has been doing and invest in asm.js to begin with, so divesting any claim in the role of asm.js's possible ascendency is a bit of a stretch.