W3C recommends WebAssembly

Post by Shish2k » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

BlueTemplar wrote: post #105

harrygallagher4 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think about this too. uBlock origin is already running into issues with trackers disguising themselves as first-party, what about when those trackers are genuinely first-party, and bundled with the page's js (which you can't just outright block)? What happens when those trackers are bundled and compiled to wasm along with the sites js? Do we then analyze the wasm and try to guess which parts are necessary for a sit…

And this is why if blocking the "web"site JavaScript breaks the "web"site itself, then it never was a web site to start with! (Trackers using these kinds of tactics was only a matter of time between trackers and blockers...)

Post by cercatrova » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

EvanAnderson wrote: post #129

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #69

Whatever you think about javascript, I love the historic separation between content and interactivity. I dislike that so many static pages won't load without JS and that we're moving further in that direction. I hope the evolution towards "browser as OS" doesn't hurt the content vs interactivity separation. Could we ever lose the HTML centered model? That could mean we lose hackability and the ability to write extens…

Even if we don't lose the HTML-centered model, we are probably going to lose control of our browsers. Eventually somebody is going to ship a product that's nothing more than a browser implemented in WASM that runs inside your browser. The "inner browser" won't have content filtering, privacy controls, DOM inspector, or a Javascript debugger (for the Javascript engine running on the "inner browser") that you can inter…

Post by strictnein » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

maeln wrote: post #118

strictnein wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A binary format is no more obfuscated than minified JS? What now? Going to need some clarification on how that's the case.

WASM is a binary and a text format. You can turn any WASM binary to the text format and have a readable version of the blob. Firefox can automatically show you the text version of a WASM blob. So no, there is no difference with a minified JS. Just because there are in a text format don't make them any more easy to reverse engineer.

   end $label121
   get_local $var7
   get_local $var9
   call $func3444
   get_local $var7
   call $func1500

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 5:22 PM UTC

cercatrova wrote: post #153

EvanAnderson wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if we don't lose the HTML-centered model, we are probably going to lose control of our browsers. Eventually somebody is going to ship a product that's nothing more than a browser implemented in WASM that runs inside your browser. The "inner browser" won't have content filtering, privacy controls, DOM inspector, or a Javascript debugger (for the Javascript engine running on the "inner browser") that you can inter…

This already happens. See Figma: https://www.figma.com/blog/webassembly-cut-figmas-load-time-... To be honest, it's a unique property of the web for you to be able to easily read the source; however, users of other platforms such as Qt are not expected to read the source. The web is simply moving in the direction of all other UI platforms, so I don't quite understand the outrage. Yes, it sucks, but it'll make apps fa…

Post by strictnein » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 5:22 PM UTC

strictnein wrote: post #143

Rusky wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a binary format originally based on minified JS, with a standard textual form, and which can be viewed and debugged with exactly the same tools (and ease) as minified JS.

Can you point me to an example of this?