RReverser

9 ms·

31.
by RReverser 5y ago
> and I think that they were only exposing features like that to trusted code (meaning apps you deliberately installed) rather than general web content I'd actually be pretty happy if browsers chose to implement those APIs with the
32.
by RReverser 5y ago
They mentioned below that they have their own devices they can control. As I understand it, for those kinds of IoT usecases the workflow is easier because, instead of overriding the driver defined by the OS, you can define WebUSB-compatible
33.
by RReverser 5y ago
Slightly tangential, but I still find it fascinating that it was Firefox OS was the first to introduce the idea of adding all sorts of hardware APIs accessible from JavaScript, or at least that was the first time I heard of that idea and pl
34.
by RReverser 5y ago
> because it’s such a run-away-screaming scary idea for security I think that's the root of our disagreement. Few years ago I've been of the same mind about giving the web new powerful features, but after watching the space and
35.
by RReverser 5y ago
I think I already made it clear in another thread why I'm not going to interact with your comments in particular. There's no need to try and post variations of the same comment throughout the tree. At the same time, I'm perfe
36.
by RReverser 5y ago
FWIW ~ works in PowerShell too.
37.
by RReverser 5y ago
It sounds like you're talking about the W3C standards track (correct me if I'm wrong, just guessing from the context) whereas I'm talking about the spec itself as the document and the API. Those are two different things after
38.
by RReverser 5y ago
Funny how you use words like "insult" yet don't see the irony in the tone you use when talking to other people :) Good day to you too.
39.
by RReverser 5y ago
Is it? It's worth keeping in mind that it's users and apps that comprise the web, not the implementation details of any given browser.
40.
by RReverser 5y ago
Ah yeah, that should be easier! I was mostly coming from the perspective of trying to get DSLR working in the demo :)
41.
by RReverser 5y ago
I understand where you're coming from, but at the same time it's a feature defined as a finalized spec in the Web incubator. Even if it's currently implemented by one engine, 1) that engine is used in browsers from many diffe
42.
by RReverser 5y ago
If it didn't even ask for permission, most likely it didn't use WebUSB, but connected via HTTP to a crappy local executable preinstalled by the vendor. Such implementations exposing all sorts of critical stuff over local HTTP serv
43.
by RReverser 5y ago
Because that browser provides a universal API that works across pretty much all the popular operating systems, whereas the alternative is to build and maintain code for each of those systems separately.
44.
by RReverser 5y ago
Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. If your device is designed for WebUSB and has its specific descriptor, then yeah, you don't need to change any drivers. However, as mentioned in the article, if it's a "well-known
45.
by RReverser 5y ago
I don't think it's worse because: 1) Wasm was designed to be easily decompilable / convertible to a text assembly representation by design, whereas for other platforms it requires fairly sophisticated disassemblers 2) Wasm ca
46.
by RReverser 5y ago
Good point regarding the offline capabilities, I'm not sure how well the Internet Archive will handle Wasm, but for the rest - WebUSB was already stabilized and isn't considered experimental (although I admit that didn't stop
47.
by RReverser 5y ago
Companies that want to do so, already embed "ring home" mechanisms in their apps that periodically connect to the Internet and check that you still hold a valid license or refuse to continue working. It seems this depends a lot mo
48.
by RReverser 5y ago
Btw, author of the port / demo / article here - happy to answer any questions you have :)
49.
by RReverser 5y ago
You can likely visit the old version of the website via Internet Archive or save an offline snapshot yourself if you want, so it would be no different to driver on an offline computer.
50.
by RReverser 5y ago
To be fair, Edge is also Chromium-based (I guess that's what the previous author meant, rather than specifically Chrome-only). But yeah, I'm also hoping for WebUSB to make its way to other browsers, but for now I'll take any
51.
Porting USB applications to the web. Part 1: libusb(web.dev)
157 points by RReverser 5y ago|124 comments
52.
Embedding JavaScript snippets in C++ with Emscripten(web.dev)
2 points by RReverser 5y ago|0 comments
53.
by RReverser 5y ago
Yeah Rust's wasm-bindgen has integration between Rust async-await and JavaScript promises which doesn't have same restrictions: https://rustwasm.github.io/wasm-bindgen/reference/js-promise... However, As
54.
by RReverser 5y ago
> As far as I can tell, “threads” from a WebAssembly implementation's perspective is just the combination of SharedArrayBuffer and atomics; FWIW that's exactly what the linked post describes :)
55.
by RReverser 5y ago
The Github Pages situation is definitely unfortunate. We tried to contact them for couple of months to ask to add an option for COOP/COEP before the deprecation, but didn't have any luck with our contacts.
56.
by RReverser 5y ago
Nice! Just noticed the backlink from those release notes to the article as well.
57.
by RReverser 5y ago
1) Oops, thanks for pointing out the mistake. Will fix in a few minutes. 2) The freaky thing is, I'm fairly sure I didn't even see or look at Rayon's official example in README when I came up with that example for my crate I
58.
Using WebAssembly threads from C, C++ and Rust(web.dev)
3 points by RReverser 5y ago|0 comments
59.
by RReverser 5y ago
That's nowhere typical, even in London you'll find that only in higher-end companies.
60.
by RReverser 5y ago
(Author here - sorry, just noticed this post got to HN a few days ago.) True, I've considered describing that feature too, but in the end decided it would be too much deviation for the article that is already fairly large. That integra

More ›