4 ms·

That WebKit issue about WebAssembly was filed by engineer working on "compilers and language runtime systems at Apple": http://www.filpizlo.com/ http://www.fil

by bd 11y ago

That WebKit issue about WebAssembly was filed by engineer working on "compilers and language runtime systems at Apple": http://www.filpizlo.com/ http://www.filpizlo.com/ https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146064 https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146064

kevinwang 11y ago
Although that doesn't necessarily mean that Apple the company is involved, no?
- walterbell 11y ago
  Maybe the engineer who is involved wasn't able to obtain organizational signoff in time for Apple to put their name on the list of top-level endorsers of the proposed standard? Hopefully Apple can issue a statement later.
  - SiVal 11y ago
    WebAssembly has so far been a joint effort among Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, and a few other folks. I’m sorry the work was done via a private github account at first, but that was a temporary measure to help the several big companies reach consensus and buy into the long-term cooperative game that must be played to pull this off. So, the effort to get buy-in from the big companies that matter has been going on for some time, and now that we've done that, here's the result: Every big company that matters except Apple. It's not as though the list of the four big companies that matter is too long to reasonably be expected to name the fourth, and the name of the fourth is not webkit.org or Fil Pizlo. So, it seems to be either an "Oops, we accidentally left one of the four out of this important announcement," or there is still enough of a problem with Apple that we decided not to delay the announcement any longer to wait for them.
    - BrendanEich 11y ago
      You are assuming a false dichotomy. There's a third possibility: what with a big four-letter-acronym developer conference and lots of other spinning plates, the full buy-in to include the company name didn't make the deadline set to get everyone else on board. Since Fil opened a webkit bug to implement wasm, I would at least hedge my false-dichotomy bet and avoid getting my mad on. Free advice, take it or leave it. (The first paragraph is actually me telling you pretty much what happened. Same thing as with WHATWG launch in 2004, BTW. Does not mean "OMG there is something WRONG and only TRULY SHINY COMPANY noticed and OBJECTED". Yeesh.)
      - walterbell 11y ago
        That's great news, thanks for the additional context. Apple and the web have a ..complicated relationship, so it means a lot that they have no known objections and are likely to endorse. It seems too good to be true that all the browser vendors would agree on something this beneficial to developers :)
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
        The important question here is: has the github repo been made public? How can we know what concessions these players have made or what kinds of collusion they have agreed to? Shouldn't the Web be built in the open -- not subject to a cabal of corporate overlords who won't reveal their intentions or thoughts?
      - SiVal 11y ago
        As long as Apple hasn't officially agreed to this, and you seem to have some sort of embargo on even referring to them by name, something other than full buy-in from them is still a possibility. This possibility makes me nervous, because I think wasm is just what the Web needs, and I don't necessarily trust Apple to have "whatever is best for the open Web" as a guiding principle. As for "getting my mad on," you seem to have gone off on some sort of tirade at the end there implying--how ironic--that I actually wanted TRULY SHINY COMPANY to save us from wasm, and your caps-lock key seems to have gotten stuck when you banged on it.
        11y ago
  - threeseed 11y ago
    It has never been Apple's style to release a statement for situations like this. Expect to see it implemented, sites like iCloud made to take advantage of it, performance metrics aka marketing collateral gathered and then a slide or two at an upcoming Apple Event with cheers from the audience. Apple is a product company first and a technology company second.

by bd 11y ago

kevinwang 11y ago

Although that doesn't necessarily mean that Apple the company is involved, no?

walterbell 11y ago
Maybe the engineer who is involved wasn't able to obtain organizational signoff in time for Apple to put their name on the list of top-level endorsers of the proposed standard? Hopefully Apple can issue a statement later.
- SiVal 11y ago
  WebAssembly has so far been a joint effort among Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, and a few other folks. I’m sorry the work was done via a private github account at first, but that was a temporary measure to help the several big companies reach consensus and buy into the long-term cooperative game that must be played to pull this off. So, the effort to get buy-in from the big companies that matter has been going on for some time, and now that we've done that, here's the result: Every big company that matters except Apple. It's not as though the list of the four big companies that matter is too long to reasonably be expected to name the fourth, and the name of the fourth is not webkit.org or Fil Pizlo. So, it seems to be either an "Oops, we accidentally left one of the four out of this important announcement," or there is still enough of a problem with Apple that we decided not to delay the announcement any longer to wait for them.
  - BrendanEich 11y ago
    You are assuming a false dichotomy. There's a third possibility: what with a big four-letter-acronym developer conference and lots of other spinning plates, the full buy-in to include the company name didn't make the deadline set to get everyone else on board. Since Fil opened a webkit bug to implement wasm, I would at least hedge my false-dichotomy bet and avoid getting my mad on. Free advice, take it or leave it. (The first paragraph is actually me telling you pretty much what happened. Same thing as with WHATWG launch in 2004, BTW. Does not mean "OMG there is something WRONG and only TRULY SHINY COMPANY noticed and OBJECTED". Yeesh.)
    - walterbell 11y ago
      That's great news, thanks for the additional context. Apple and the web have a ..complicated relationship, so it means a lot that they have no known objections and are likely to endorse. It seems too good to be true that all the browser vendors would agree on something this beneficial to developers :)
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      The important question here is: has the github repo been made public? How can we know what concessions these players have made or what kinds of collusion they have agreed to? Shouldn't the Web be built in the open -- not subject to a cabal of corporate overlords who won't reveal their intentions or thoughts?
    - SiVal 11y ago
      As long as Apple hasn't officially agreed to this, and you seem to have some sort of embargo on even referring to them by name, something other than full buy-in from them is still a possibility. This possibility makes me nervous, because I think wasm is just what the Web needs, and I don't necessarily trust Apple to have "whatever is best for the open Web" as a guiding principle. As for "getting my mad on," you seem to have gone off on some sort of tirade at the end there implying--how ironic--that I actually wanted TRULY SHINY COMPANY to save us from wasm, and your caps-lock key seems to have gotten stuck when you banged on it.
      - 11y ago
- threeseed 11y ago
  It has never been Apple's style to release a statement for situations like this. Expect to see it implemented, sites like iCloud made to take advantage of it, performance metrics aka marketing collateral gathered and then a slide or two at an upcoming Apple Event with cheers from the audience. Apple is a product company first and a technology company second.