3 ms·

> 1. I don't know how helpful open source is if that source is inscrutable. The JS generated by Emscripten isn't super useful. People ship nonfree, minified Ja

> 1. I don't know how helpful open source is if that source is inscrutable. The JS generated by Emscripten isn't super useful. People ship nonfree, minified JavaScript all the time, and "open source" doesn't mean "only distributed in the form preferred for modification". I don't see how this is unique to asm.js, or even that important: you can just put a link back to the "real" (e.g. C++) source in a comment on the page you serve.

camgunz 12y ago
I agree. I've seen asm.js proponents argue that, compared with PNaCl for example, asm.js isn't a binary blob. Maybe not technically, but I think it's hard enough to work with Emscripten-generated asm.js that it may as well be, and it's hard enough to write a large application in asm.js that you probably want to use C/C++ and transpile it to JS with Emscripten. That's the only point I was trying to make. I do think you've hit on something though: > People ship nonfree, minified JavaScript all the time I know, and I think it's dangerous for software freedom if the apps we start depending on are all closed-source web services, where we're at the mercy of the owners. Vendor lock-in is vendor lock-in, no matter the distribution channel, and zero-install isn't worth it.
- tree_of_item 12y ago
  I am getting the sense that you think asm.js has some troubling interaction with software freedom and I just don't agree with that at all. Whether or not the code you receive is free software is orthogonal to whether or not it's been run through a compiler. Emacs is free software and people typically download a binary to use it. Is that dangerous somehow? The source code is in a well known location. I agree that it is troubling that nonfree JavaScript is shipped all the time, but again, that happens every day without asm.js being involved, and asm.js does not help or hinder this.
  - camgunz 12y ago
    I get what you're saying. My counter-argument is that because asm.js is being pushed as a distribution platform for "desktop" apps, and web services are so rarely open source, software freedom stands to take a hit. The main reason free software saw such adoption was that it was very high quality software available for free. Most people aren't even aware of the philosophy and history behind it, nor would they base their decision on what software to use on that philosophy and history. Web services aren't covered by free software licenses, but they generally have no cost, are sandboxed, and you don't have to install them (even though you're actually "installing" them a lot, just in the background). For almost all users, that's a huge win, but for free software, that's a huge loss. asm.js enabled many more classes of software to run in this environment, and I think that's a big looming negative for software freedom. I love Mozilla and I think what they do is amazing on almost every level. But the web is more than just a browser and JavaScript. There's 65k ports and dozens (hundreds?) of protocols. There's no need for the battle for the open web to take place only in the browser space.

camgunz 12y ago

I agree. I've seen asm.js proponents argue that, compared with PNaCl for example, asm.js isn't a binary blob. Maybe not technically, but I think it's hard enough to work with Emscripten-generated asm.js that it may as well be, and it's hard enough to write a large application in asm.js that you probably want to use C/C++ and transpile it to JS with Emscripten. That's the only point I was trying to make. I do think you've hit on something though: > People ship nonfree, minified JavaScript all the time I know, and I think it's dangerous for software freedom if the apps we start depending on are all closed-source web services, where we're at the mercy of the owners. Vendor lock-in is vendor lock-in, no matter the distribution channel, and zero-install isn't worth it.

tree_of_item 12y ago
I am getting the sense that you think asm.js has some troubling interaction with software freedom and I just don't agree with that at all. Whether or not the code you receive is free software is orthogonal to whether or not it's been run through a compiler. Emacs is free software and people typically download a binary to use it. Is that dangerous somehow? The source code is in a well known location. I agree that it is troubling that nonfree JavaScript is shipped all the time, but again, that happens every day without asm.js being involved, and asm.js does not help or hinder this.
- camgunz 12y ago
  I get what you're saying. My counter-argument is that because asm.js is being pushed as a distribution platform for "desktop" apps, and web services are so rarely open source, software freedom stands to take a hit. The main reason free software saw such adoption was that it was very high quality software available for free. Most people aren't even aware of the philosophy and history behind it, nor would they base their decision on what software to use on that philosophy and history. Web services aren't covered by free software licenses, but they generally have no cost, are sandboxed, and you don't have to install them (even though you're actually "installing" them a lot, just in the background). For almost all users, that's a huge win, but for free software, that's a huge loss. asm.js enabled many more classes of software to run in this environment, and I think that's a big looming negative for software freedom. I love Mozilla and I think what they do is amazing on almost every level. But the web is more than just a browser and JavaScript. There's 65k ports and dozens (hundreds?) of protocols. There's no need for the battle for the open web to take place only in the browser space.