4 ms·

I think it's fairly clear that NaCl is suggested only as an alternative for applications with needs not yet supported by open web technologies: Most use case

I think it's fairly clear that NaCl is suggested only as an alternative for applications with needs not yet supported by open web technologies: Most use cases that previously required NPAPI are now supported by JavaScript-based open web technologies. For the few applications that need low-level APIs, threads, and machine-optimized code, Native Client offers the ability to run sandboxed native code in Chrome. And accepting that, NaCl is free and open source that is publicly developed, so I don't see any of the implications of your argument working.

gcp 12y ago
And accepting that, NaCl is free and open source that is publicly developed, so I don't see any of the implications of your argument working. Wake me up when anyone (can) realistically do an independent reimplementation. Claiming that NaCl is "open web" is a sure sign of excessive reality distortion fields.
- justinschuh 12y ago
  Did you even read what you're responding to here? Because your comments throughout this thread imply that you have not. The only use of the term "open web" was specifically in reference to cross-browser technologies. You are the one inappropriately applying it where it was not originally used. So, I think you should take a step back and consider what your argument here really is. If you have some other objections to NaCl as a technology, then that's certainly your right. However, I don't see you substantiating your objections beyond vague FUD and ad hominem attacks. The reality is that NaCl is free and open source code with a permissive license. It's thoroughly documented and has an exhaustive test suite that would make an alternate implementation straightforward. In fact, independent teams have used exactly that documentation and those tests to reimplement entirely new validators for NaCl from scratch (e.g. the regex based validator). So, there really is no legitimate argument that NaCl couldn't realistically be reimplemented (even accepting that NaCl's license precludes such a need anyway).

gcp 12y ago

And accepting that, NaCl is free and open source that is publicly developed, so I don't see any of the implications of your argument working. Wake me up when anyone (can) realistically do an independent reimplementation. Claiming that NaCl is "open web" is a sure sign of excessive reality distortion fields.

justinschuh 12y ago
Did you even read what you're responding to here? Because your comments throughout this thread imply that you have not. The only use of the term "open web" was specifically in reference to cross-browser technologies. You are the one inappropriately applying it where it was not originally used. So, I think you should take a step back and consider what your argument here really is. If you have some other objections to NaCl as a technology, then that's certainly your right. However, I don't see you substantiating your objections beyond vague FUD and ad hominem attacks. The reality is that NaCl is free and open source code with a permissive license. It's thoroughly documented and has an exhaustive test suite that would make an alternate implementation straightforward. In fact, independent teams have used exactly that documentation and those tests to reimplement entirely new validators for NaCl from scratch (e.g. the regex based validator). So, there really is no legitimate argument that NaCl couldn't realistically be reimplemented (even accepting that NaCl's license precludes such a need anyway).