azakai

68 ms·

781.
by azakai 11y ago
Yes, sorry, I meant the comment was overly pessimistic. I'll edit.
782.
by azakai 11y ago
There will also be special builds of Beta and Release without this limitation - you won't need to use Developer or Nightly.
783.
by azakai 11y ago
I think that may be overly pessimistic: The post says they are working to extend WebExtensions in ways to allow addons that currently can't work in the Chrome etc. addon APIs. I'm not sure if that will address that concern, it dep
784.
by azakai 11y ago
> Package it as an uninstallable extension That is in fact the plan now, after the feedback Mozilla received on this: > "Folks said that Pocket should have been a bundled add-on that could have been more easily removed entirely f
785.
by azakai 11y ago
Yes, and I think it's fine that v8 took that route - it's actually the route that I recommended that Firefox take. It is also the route that JavaScriptCore is taking. So I completely agree with you that the v8 team's approach
786.
by azakai 11y ago
I think I see where you're coming from. Overall, I think it's hard for us to estimate how much effort it would take for Unity to support another platform. Perhaps I was overly pessimistic when I said supporting a platform just for
787.
by azakai 11y ago
Not sure what I did to deserve that hostility. I respect you and your work, and I agree that deprecating NPAPI is a good thing. I don't know anything about why Unity stopped supporting NaCl. But the fact remains that Chrome has left Un
788.
by azakai 11y ago
It depends on the functionality you need. Unity does a lot more than lightweight WebGL engines do. Of course, if a lightweight WebGL engine is enough - and it might well be the case for this NASA app, which doesn't need sophisticated A
789.
by azakai 11y ago
The article puts too much blame on Unity and not enough blame on browser vendors. This is hinted at in the article: > Browsers are the programs which eat all of a computer's free memory, and the half-finished Unity WebGL build often
790.
by azakai 11y ago
As the link mentions, you don't need to build from source. Binary builds are provided that do not have this restriction, for those that want that.
791.
by azakai 11y ago
The link also says that there will be builds of normal (release) and beta Firefox that do not have this limitation, for those that want them. (In addition to people always being able to recompile the browser with whatever modifications they
792.
by azakai 11y ago
Sadly I agree. Le Guin is a remarkable talent but the interviewer asked stock questions, nothing tailored to her. Some interviewees might find a way to turn that into something interesting, but it just seems like Le Guin and those questions
793.
by azakai 11y ago
I can understand that they are worried about lies being told, but the solution to malicious liars is not to stifle free speech in general. The fact is, sadly, that in any free society freedom of speech will be misused by some people. And th
794.
by azakai 11y ago
Making a new set of APIs like that would need to be done very carefully, to keep the web consistent and also to make sure it is sandboxed properly and so forth. In general the web is actually going in that direction, for example WebGL is si
795.
by azakai 11y ago
One option is the relooper [1][2] which is used in emscripten. It recreates high-level control structures as best it can, then falls back to a helper variable when it can't. Another option is node-splitting, where irreducible control f
796.
by azakai 11y ago
Not sure I understand the problem - what is the issue with APIs? WebAssembly will have the same API access as asm.js, both can call into JS (and JS can then access any web API).
797.
by azakai 11y ago
It does feel fast for asm.js, but WebAssembly is simply much better than it. We did asm.js because there wasn't an option to do something better earlier; now that there is, with all browser vendors eager to collaborate, it seems pointl
798.
by azakai 11y ago
> Too high-level, too JavaScript-centric. It’s going to take programs encoded as Abstract Syntax Trees (ASTs) as input, which seems quite wrong. GCC, clang, and other real-world compilers usually generate Control Flow Graphs (CFGs) at th
799.
by azakai 11y ago
And the sad thing is, they still don't, and Windows users will keep using Windows 10 after this flurry of articles dies down.
800.
by azakai 11y ago
I wonder if the difference in decision here has to do with Firefox having its own Long Term Support version. So people needing GTK2 on say Ubuntu LTS can use Firefox LTS for that, and latest Firefox is more free to focus on GTK3.
801.
by azakai 11y ago
I like this a lot. It's similar to lljs [1] in allowing small amounts of asm.js to be generated, using a familiar syntax (C). That's an important use case and indeed Emscripten doesn't really support it. Two comments on this
802.
by azakai 11y ago
> Some octopuses did not like being removed from their tanks. They would hide. They would squeeze into a corner where they couldn’t be pried out. They would hold on to some object with their arms and not let go. > Some would let thems
803.
by azakai 11y ago
I wasn't involved in the study on this. I watched a presentation summarizing the study. User research isn't my field, but my understanding is that the study asked a random sample of people if they noticed the feature, if they foun
804.
by azakai 11y ago
That's true. As mburns commented above, it looks like the goal is in fact to do the extra work in order to turn Pocket into an addon, for the reasons you mention.
805.
by azakai 11y ago
Oh ok, sorry for misunderstanding you before.
806.
by azakai 11y ago
Ok, I think I understand your objection now. I can sympathize with your position - browsers would be purer without such integrations. It would be a better world. I do think, however, that to compete with other browsers, such integration is
807.
by azakai 11y ago
Maybe I am not following you. Are you saying that browser integrations with google, bing, etc. are all shady?
808.
by azakai 11y ago
This is similar to integrating with a search provider, which all browsers do, for better or for worse. And all search providers are closed source and for-profit: Google, Bing, Yahoo, Yandex, Baidu, etc.
809.
by azakai 11y ago
This might also be good for Pocket, but I don't think that had anything to do with Firefox's decision. Why would it?
810.
by azakai 11y ago
There might be more. But tests are time-consuming and can't be done on everything. Also, the number of addons you want to preinstall has to be quite small - past a certain limit, it's too much clutter in the UI, as you correctly

More ›