3 ms·

>The important thing is to realize that until just recently - a few months or so - people did not believe that SINGLE-threaded JS code on the web could be close

>The important thing is to realize that until just recently - a few months or so - people did not believe that SINGLE-threaded JS code on the web could be close to native speed. Single threaded Javascript was already 'fast enough' for the CRUD interfaces that makes up most web apps. Web apps are horrible to use because the network is unreliable for many people, latency is terrible for just about everybody, browsers provide a very poor and limited set of APIs for many of the tasks people actually want to do (interacting with hardware, file systems, audio, inter-app interoperability etc) and apps are forced to run inside a sandbox that can't be escaped. Cloud services nearly always mean that users lose control of their data. Web apps are rarely open source (and if they are you still can't change the version of the app that you actually use because it runs on a server you don't control). A faster Facebook with 3D effects is still a terrible platform. Homer Simpson: Kids: there's three ways to do things; the right way, the wrong way and the Max Power way! Bart: Isn't that the wrong way? Homer Simpson: Yeah, but faster! I think a lot of this obsession over Javascript speed is a distraction (support for more languages is nice for developers of course). Making slightly faster VMs is just an engineering problem: throw more resources at it and things will improve. The hard problems are political and also related to the basic network infrastructure (constrained by the laws of physics). Trying to recreate the entire operating system inside the browser, for all possible uses (even performance sensitive things), is a huge overreach when we don't seem to have a clue how to make the basic web app experience good. Why is it hard? Because the founding idea of a single sandboxed standard for all platforms is unworkable in the real world. Not only does it mean all developers surrendering complete control to the people defining the standard (who also happen to be big players in many other related markets), it relies on the big players actually agreeing, which is often not in their interest. If the world had moved to Gopher based OSs in the early 90s the web as we know it would not have come into existence. What future possible technologies are we destroying by locking ourselves into the web sandbox?

hughw 13y ago
Your premise is demonstrably wrong > Why is it hard? Because the founding idea of a single sandboxed standard for all platforms is unworkable in the real world. Not only does it mean all developers surrendering complete control to the people defining the standard (who also happen to be big players in many other related markets), it relies on the big players actually agreeing, which is often not in their interest. The innovation in browsers and webapps is coming from the vendors each acting individually, and puling standards bodies along with them. If you as a developer, are waiting around for them all to agree on any technology, before leveraging it, then you are just paralyzed. Develop against WebGL and asm.js now to get early mover advantages. If you wait for universal uptake, you'll never get anything done.
- anon1385 13y ago
  Demonstrably wrong? Remind us how many years it took to get rounded corners into CSS? >The innovation in browsers and webapps is coming from the vendors Yes, which does not contradict what I said at all: "the people defining the standard (who also happen to be big players in many other related markets)". The vendors are big industry players who have their own agendas that rarely coincide with my interests (yes even Mozilla). They also get to veto any proposal they don't like. The Kinect has been available for years now, which is an age in the consumer tech space. Where is the open standard web API? Do you see how it might be difficult to get Mozilla, Google and Apple to agree to standardise, implement and support an API for proprietary Microsoft technology? Creating a specific API for every type of device (photo cameras, video cameras, accelerometer, touch screens etc) and not providing a low level interface to hardware is the wrong route to take. High level APIs are fine, but it is important to also provide the ability for people to extend platform support in new and unforeseeable ways, and that requires lower level access. WebRTC is another excellent example of conflicts of interest with Microsoft opposed to it because it challenges Skype (or because it is technically deficient, depending upon which side you are on). The difference between the web as a platform and real open operating systems is stark. If Windows had been like the web -- locked down with only a limited set of approved APIs -- then Skype could not have been created unless Microsoft decided to allow it. Substitute Microsoft for Apple/Google/Mozilla/Microsoft and you have the situation we have with the web. Perhaps some people don't see the this because of the tribal nature of technology discussions. People don't see the web as being restrictive because their 'team' (be that Apple or Google or Microsoft or Mozilla) has a say in it. So most arguments devolve into discussion about how X is blocking a proposal by Y and the proposal is either good for the web or bad for the web depending on whether you favour X or Y. Few people seem to stop and wonder why we are creating a system where X can veto technologies, even for people who don't use a single product created by X. >If you as a developer, are waiting around for them all to agree on any technology, before leveraging it, then you are just paralyzed. Develop against WebGL and asm.js now to get early mover advantages. How does developing against asm.js and WebGL help me interface with new input devices? It doesn't help me one bit. All it does is let me create a faster shinier version of current webapps (that only runs in certain browsers). This is a reoccurring argument though: the web will be a decent platform once we finally get $NEW_API_PROPOSAL that fill fix everything 'once and for all'.

hughw 13y ago

Your premise is demonstrably wrong > Why is it hard? Because the founding idea of a single sandboxed standard for all platforms is unworkable in the real world. Not only does it mean all developers surrendering complete control to the people defining the standard (who also happen to be big players in many other related markets), it relies on the big players actually agreeing, which is often not in their interest. The innovation in browsers and webapps is coming from the vendors each acting individually, and puling standards bodies along with them. If you as a developer, are waiting around for them all to agree on any technology, before leveraging it, then you are just paralyzed. Develop against WebGL and asm.js now to get early mover advantages. If you wait for universal uptake, you'll never get anything done.

anon1385 13y ago
Demonstrably wrong? Remind us how many years it took to get rounded corners into CSS? >The innovation in browsers and webapps is coming from the vendors Yes, which does not contradict what I said at all: "the people defining the standard (who also happen to be big players in many other related markets)". The vendors are big industry players who have their own agendas that rarely coincide with my interests (yes even Mozilla). They also get to veto any proposal they don't like. The Kinect has been available for years now, which is an age in the consumer tech space. Where is the open standard web API? Do you see how it might be difficult to get Mozilla, Google and Apple to agree to standardise, implement and support an API for proprietary Microsoft technology? Creating a specific API for every type of device (photo cameras, video cameras, accelerometer, touch screens etc) and not providing a low level interface to hardware is the wrong route to take. High level APIs are fine, but it is important to also provide the ability for people to extend platform support in new and unforeseeable ways, and that requires lower level access. WebRTC is another excellent example of conflicts of interest with Microsoft opposed to it because it challenges Skype (or because it is technically deficient, depending upon which side you are on). The difference between the web as a platform and real open operating systems is stark. If Windows had been like the web -- locked down with only a limited set of approved APIs -- then Skype could not have been created unless Microsoft decided to allow it. Substitute Microsoft for Apple/Google/Mozilla/Microsoft and you have the situation we have with the web. Perhaps some people don't see the this because of the tribal nature of technology discussions. People don't see the web as being restrictive because their 'team' (be that Apple or Google or Microsoft or Mozilla) has a say in it. So most arguments devolve into discussion about how X is blocking a proposal by Y and the proposal is either good for the web or bad for the web depending on whether you favour X or Y. Few people seem to stop and wonder why we are creating a system where X can veto technologies, even for people who don't use a single product created by X. >If you as a developer, are waiting around for them all to agree on any technology, before leveraging it, then you are just paralyzed. Develop against WebGL and asm.js now to get early mover advantages. How does developing against asm.js and WebGL help me interface with new input devices? It doesn't help me one bit. All it does is let me create a faster shinier version of current webapps (that only runs in certain browsers). This is a reoccurring argument though: the web will be a decent platform once we finally get $NEW_API_PROPOSAL that fill fix everything 'once and for all'.