Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A pure JavaScript implementation of Git for Node and browsers

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 203 posts

Re: A pure JavaScript implementation of Git for Node and browsers

#191

Post by vlovich123 »

regularfry wrote: post #172
vlovich123 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you clarify this point? To me it would seem with Rust being able to target WASM/ASM.js that you could indeed target all the same environments JS does.

Emscripten means that's not a distinguishing feature from C or C++.

My response was to the last part that there's an environment where Javascript can run but Rust can't. I agree that C/C++ targets are a strict superset but I'll posit that for all the architectures that matter it's the same surface area at which point the calculation for which to use is about ease-of-use, correctness, etc.

Re: A pure JavaScript implementation of Git for Node and browsers

#192

Post by erikpukinskis »

nulagrithom wrote: post #158
erikpukinskis wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people say “The Browser” they mean “that thing which is on literally every computer where you instantly load that one kind of software”. People think the web is a technology, or that JavaScript is a language. They’re not. It’s not. The web is an idea: it’s the idea that every computer in the world already has the runtime on it that can run your next app. Whatever that is—whatever that runtime is—that’s “The Brow…

What are you babbling about? The web is technology. JavaScript is a language. And WASM is shipping in all major browsers already. You don't have to wait 10 years. You can start using WASM today.

It hurts my feelings that you think I’m babbling. I’m trying to be as articulate as I can.

I don’t want to write software just for people with 2 year old iPhones. I write software for everyone, especially people who can’t afford anything but the hardware they’re stuck with. That’s why I’m not going to target WASM.

That’s my point: to me, “The Web” isn’t just modern browsers on newish devices. It’s the whole world as an audience. I think that’s why so many people target the web.

I also think WASM is premature optimization in almost all situations.

That said, I totally support anyone who wants to target it. It’s dope technology. If you love Rust and you want to write browser apps with it, and limit your audience a little, knock yourself out. I don’t think you’re embracing what the web is for, but there’s no law that says you have to.

Re: A pure JavaScript implementation of Git for Node and browsers

#193

Post by erikpukinskis »

somenewacc wrote: post #139
erikpukinskis wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people say “The Browser” they mean “that thing which is on literally every computer where you instantly load that one kind of software”. People think the web is a technology, or that JavaScript is a language. They’re not. It’s not. The web is an idea: it’s the idea that every computer in the world already has the runtime on it that can run your next app. Whatever that is—whatever that runtime is—that’s “The Brow…

emscripten can compile to both wasm and asm.js and load them depending on browser support. this seems good enough.

Performance won’t be as good as hand tuned JavaScript with native DOM calls.

Re: A pure JavaScript implementation of Git for Node and browsers

#194

Post by erikpukinskis »

abiox wrote: post #160
erikpukinskis wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people say “The Browser” they mean “that thing which is on literally every computer where you instantly load that one kind of software”. People think the web is a technology, or that JavaScript is a language. They’re not. It’s not. The web is an idea: it’s the idea that every computer in the world already has the runtime on it that can run your next app. Whatever that is—whatever that runtime is—that’s “The Brow…

afaik webassembly has shipped in all major browsers - edge, firefox, opera, chrome and safari... including mobile versions.

If your audience can exclude the very poor and people with extreme bandwidth limitations ( for updating OS, etc), or you can afford to just tell people “no” then that’s certainly a decision you can make. But you’ll be saying no to a lot of people.

Re: A pure JavaScript implementation of Git for Node and browsers

#195

Post by geocar »

nudpiedo wrote: post #190
geocar wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> None of the things you mention are exclusive or innovated by JavaScript JavaScript is distributed across billions of devices. Nothing else comes close. If you read my comment as an endorsement of JavaScript instead of an explanation why people care more about its expanding universe than someone dinking around in Rust, then you're making two mistakes.

Still do not get how you leverage these billions of devices as workers for a distributed workload; it is by all metrics suboptimal or mediocre compared with any other programming platform to distribute workloads. As customer end-point we would be speaking in a different context. Please do not label other’s different of interpretation as interpretation mistakes: I believe your opinion is factually wrong.

> Still do not get how you leverage these billions of devices as workers for a distributed workload

Happy to alleviate some of your ignorance by typing more slowly.

I buy ads.

I can get access to devices anywhere in the world, do network testing, and on the last mile which is cost prohibitive for any other distribution channel.

> Please do not label other’s different of interpretation as interpretation mistakes

Then don't be wrong.

Re: A pure JavaScript implementation of Git for Node and browsers

#196

Post by geocar »

InTheTop2 wrote: post #189
geocar wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rust works on the web by converting it to JavaScript.

which converts it to binary. You really haven't made a point in the thread. You think JS is special and you like it. Don't pretend that means something.

It is special. The OP admits as such. His question is why.

Re: A pure JavaScript implementation of Git for Node and browsers

#197

Post by abiox »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #194
abiox wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

afaik webassembly has shipped in all major browsers - edge, firefox, opera, chrome and safari... including mobile versions.

If your audience can exclude the very poor and people with extreme bandwidth limitations ( for updating OS, etc), or you can afford to just tell people “no” then that’s certainly a decision you can make. But you’ll be saying no to a lot of people.

i'm sorry but i don't quite follow what you're trying to say.

Re: A pure JavaScript implementation of Git for Node and browsers

#198

Post by abiox »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #193
somenewacc wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

emscripten can compile to both wasm and asm.js and load them depending on browser support. this seems good enough.

Performance won’t be as good as hand tuned JavaScript with native DOM calls.

webassembly has vastly improved performance in a variety of situations.

Re: A pure JavaScript implementation of Git for Node and browsers

#199

Post by erikpukinskis »

abiox wrote: post #197
erikpukinskis wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your audience can exclude the very poor and people with extreme bandwidth limitations ( for updating OS, etc), or you can afford to just tell people “no” then that’s certainly a decision you can make. But you’ll be saying no to a lot of people.

i'm sorry but i don't quite follow what you're trying to say.

I’m getting a lot of pushback in this thread so I’ll put this in the “maybe I’m wrong bucket”.

I’ll wait to talk about it again until after I have experience doing browser compatiblility testing with a WASM toolchain.

Re: A pure JavaScript implementation of Git for Node and browsers

#200

Post by nudpiedo »

geocar wrote: post #195
nudpiedo wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still do not get how you leverage these billions of devices as workers for a distributed workload; it is by all metrics suboptimal or mediocre compared with any other programming platform to distribute workloads. As customer end-point we would be speaking in a different context. Please do not label other’s different of interpretation as interpretation mistakes: I believe your opinion is factually wrong.

> Still do not get how you leverage these billions of devices as workers for a distributed workload Happy to alleviate some of your ignorance by typing more slowly. I buy ads. I can get access to devices anywhere in the world, do network testing, and on the last mile which is cost prohibitive for any other distribution channel. > Please do not label other’s different of interpretation as interpretation mistakes Then…

And is via Ads the way you distribute workload across devices? Do not call that distributed computing.

Actually I prefer to ignore your practices.

> Then don’t be wrong.

Whatever, the pound for you if that makes you happy.

Post reply on HN