5 ms·
So providing APIs designed for C and C++ (instead of gluing it to JavaScript APIs) makes PNaCl the same as either an unsandboxed, proprietary, closed-source, no
by haberman 13y ago
So providing APIs designed for C and C++ (instead of gluing it to JavaScript APIs) makes PNaCl the same as either an unsandboxed, proprietary, closed-source, non-OS-portable, non-CPU-portable Microsoft technology from the 90s, or a proprietary, closed-source Adobe technlogy from the 2000s?
I think that may be a false dichotomy.
- TazeTSchnitzel 13y agoWell, PNaCl is poorly specified, difficult to implement for other browser vendors, and relies on a single implementation.
- haberman 13y ago> PNaCl is poorly specified Not sure that's fair: https://developers.google.com/native-client/dev/reference/pnacl-bitcode-abi https://developers.google.com/native-client/dev/reference/pn... But even if all of those things was true, that makes it ok to call it ActiveX? By that logic I can call Firefox IE because it implements extensions to JavaScript that have not (yet) been standardized. But that wouldn't be fair and neither is calling PNaCl ActiveX.