callahad

57 ms·

571.
by callahad 10y ago
Looks like the first hurdle is that it's relying on the deprecated document.registerElement API from an early draft of the Web Components specs, which prevents the app from booting in Firefox. Edit: Paul Kinlan reports that Earth is us
572.
by callahad 10y ago
If any Googlers are reading this: What does the new Earth require that Firefox is missing? I'm happy to help file things in Bugzilla so that this Chrome App can grow into a standards-based Web app.
573.
by callahad 10y ago
Firefox, WordPress, Drupal, and Wikipedia may also fit your definition.
574.
by callahad 10y ago
I don't believe so. Google's AMP Cache is opportunistic with no opt-out for valid AMP pages. Further, according to the AMP Cache Guidelines at https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/s
575.
by callahad 10y ago
My understanding is that AMP wants to make it impossible to write poorly-performing websites. For example, all externally fetched resources, like images, must have explicit dimensions specified in markup. This makes it possible to staticall
576.
by callahad 10y ago
Yep! That's the one
577.
by callahad 10y ago
If you want the AMP "lightning bolt of trust" and want to be eligible for the "Top Stories" carousel, you have to allow Google to cache and re-serve your content from their AMP Cache. Opting out of caching requires makin
578.
by callahad 10y ago
The binary has version 0xD, the last pre-release version of WebAssembly. Firefox and Chrome are now looking for version 0x1.
579.
Why WebAssembly is a game changer for the web(medium.com)
30 points by callahad 10y ago|3 comments
580.
by callahad 10y ago
The WASM Explorer is a good place to start. I wrote up a little blurb about it: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2017/03/previewing-the-webassembly... Lin Clark's Cartoon Intro to WebAssembly is also great: https:&
581.
by callahad 10y ago
All of the machinery is in core, and will stay there (much of it is also depended on by the Tor uplift project's first party isolation features). This Test Pilot experiment is predominately about iterating on the UI. Test Pilot isn&#x2
582.
by callahad 10y ago
Many developers have no practical exposure to compiled languages, and are prone to believe that Node.js is generally "faster" than Java and comparable to C++. We all had to learn this stuff somewhere. :)
583.
by callahad 10y ago
Yes. Here's the announcement: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webassembly/2017...
584.
by callahad 10y ago
You're unnecessarily constraining your thinking to the present-day Web. WASM fundamentally expands what's feasible in that domain. For instance, access to the DOM doesn't really matter for game engines like Unity or Unreal, o
585.
by callahad 10y ago
You don't have to go back to the 80's to develop closer to the metal. Neither Rust nor Swift have garbage collection, but both are thoroughly modern, productive languages. I've also been told that C++14 is reasonably pleasant
586.
by callahad 10y ago
I think that's an overly pessimistic view, which complements my overly optimistic view. :) > WebAssembly has no access to any of the web API (DOM, ...) WebAssembly can access those APIs via indirect, opaque shims today. Direct a
587.
by callahad 10y ago
Not the OP, but you're assuming that systems languages are lower productivity than JavaScript. I don't believe that Rust and Swift are necessarily lower productivity than JavaScript. Nevertheless, here are a few of the main reason
588.
by callahad 10y ago
> you certainly will never be able to compile a language like Ruby to LLVM $ file /usr/bin/ruby /usr/bin/ruby ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, interpreter /l
589.
by callahad 10y ago
Thanks! Looks like these have been fixed.
590.
by callahad 10y ago
For purposes of pretty-printing and studying, the WASM MVP is effectively a binary encoding of asm.js. Imports and exports have names and are statically defined, while the degree to which unexported symbols are mangled is determined by your
591.
by callahad 10y ago
Firefox 52 will ship with WebAssembly support in exactly one week. The era of a JavaScript monoculture on the Web is over.
592.
by callahad 10y ago
Pocket is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Corporation, so Pocket retains a great deal of autonomy within their organization. Since Mozilla acquired the entire team, I'd start by reaching out to the individuals listed on https
593.
by callahad 10y ago
TST will be possible with WebExtensions. For hard evidence, even the Add-Ons Engineering Manager is working on his own, personal vertical tabs webextension to suss out what APIs we need: https://github.com/andymckay/sid
594.
by callahad 10y ago
Why's that? This acquisition was carried out by the self-funding Mozilla Corporation. The Mozilla Foundation is a separate entity.
595.
by callahad 10y ago
Donations to "Mozilla" go to the non-profit Mozilla Foundation, which does exceptional, meaningful work. Firefox is developed by the Foundation's self-funding, for-profit subsidary, the Mozilla Corporation (MoCo). MoCo acquir
596.
by callahad 10y ago
Mozilla is actively working to diversify its sources of funding; the greatest step in that was when we switched from a global default of Google search to smaller, regional deals with Yahoo, Google, Yandex, and Baidu toward the end of 2014.
597.
by callahad 10y ago
What about Bing, Baidu, Yandex, The Internet Archive, and Common Crawl? What about caches that are surely maintained by the NSA, ФСБ, and 3PLA?
598.
by callahad 10y ago
Pseudalopex pretty much nailed it; Google has strongly resisted adding sidebar APIs to Chrome, or allowing add-ons to hide / relocate the tab bar. Those are two of the major reasons why it's difficult to build a quality Tree Style
599.
by callahad 10y ago
Replacing the entire browser chrome is unlikely to happen on the release channel of Firefox, but everything else has potential. Generally, the way forward will be to use WebExtension Experiments ( https://webextensions-experiments
600.
by callahad 10y ago
> I want the addons to have full control over my browser I can assure you that you only want this if you can guarantee that your add-ons only do what they claim, don't have security vulnerabilities, and are never acquired and mali

More ›