4 ms·
Am I the only one worried about the implications of asm.js and imminent close-sourcing of the web? I don't want bytecode in my browser. I barely like having so
by nickysielicki 12y ago
Am I the only one worried about the implications of asm.js and imminent close-sourcing of the web?
I don't want bytecode in my browser. I barely like having some skiddie's javascript in my browser as it is currently. The fact that I'm about to lose the ability to even understand it is scary to me.
(Yes, I know people compile their JS currently... But that's relatively less convoluted. and can be deconstructed to a degree. This is another level.)
- Aldo_MX 12y agoBytecode is easier to decompile than assembly code, and you can expect the output of a decompiler to resemble minified code.
- nickysielicki 12y ago>you can expect the output of a decompiler to resemble minified code. I doubt that. When your C++ is ran through LLVM's optimizer it's structurally changed to a huge degree.
- CmonDev 12y agoI think the next logical step is only allowing running manually-written scripts in a quirks mode with a big warning message to user. That would be awesome. If I am forced to a use/transpile-to crappy script language by industry then you should suffer too.
- dmm 12y agoThe web is already closed-source. You can read gmail's js but you don't have the right to modify or redistribute it.
- nickysielicki 12y agoFreedom implies openness, but openness doesn't imply freedom. Gmail's JS is open, but it is not free.
- dmm 12y agoOpen source means you have the right to modify and redistribute. If you want to express a different idea use a different term.