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

On Asm.js

acko.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 185 posts

Re: On Asm.js

#101

Post by protomyth »

kayoone wrote: post #42
fidotron wrote: post #26

This discussion is missing the simple point that the web is rapidly gaining all the flaws that Flash used to have, without the nice (for some) editing environment. The web really isn't suited for app development at all, as the native mobile markets have demonstrated, while the viability of it as a document delivery platform diminishes every time the content gets hidden behind a massive layer of scripts.

> The web really isn't suited for app development at all, as the native mobile markets have demonstrated Mobile markets have also demonstrated tightly controlled walled gardens, where fast iteration, platform independence and openness have been replaced with strict rules and controls by the market controlling entities. Is that really a direction you want to move in? The web as a platform is still lacking in terms of…

> The web as a platform is still lacking in terms of User Experience, but id argue its catching up quickly and already far ahead in most other areas.

The web has had quite a long time to get there, yet it is still easier to write a decent application on NEXTSTEP that spawned the web then on the web. You would think we could at least make it as easy as HyperCard or Visual Basic 1.0, but we are still trying to push UI into a format that wasn't designed for it. I'm not sure the ultimate solution, but I get the feeling it will be what comes next and not more iterations of the same.

Re: On Asm.js

#102

Post by franole »

franole wrote: post #5

Windowx XP give me the blue screen of death, with Firefox 25.0.1

My first comment and I get down votes :(

Please don't get me wrong, I was just looking for confirmation of the same error. I love Firefox. Even I never switch to Chrome for common office work. I know microsoft will stop supporting XP, but hopefully Mozlla don't [1]. Unfortunately, in some third world companies (like where I work), IT guys prefer not to change what works until it is absolutely necessary.

Sorry for my English. PS: I'm not that IT gut.

[1] http://www.neowin.net/news/mozilla-to-support-firefox-on-win...

Re: On Asm.js

#103

Post by nfoz »

protomyth wrote: post #99
captainmuon wrote: post #51

Imagine there would be a language that would compile to proper bytecode (not JS), that would run on a standardized platform which is present on almost every computer, that is mature, sandboxed, and actually pretty fast. Oh, wait, that already exists and is called Java. Java has gotten a bad rep lately due to some high-profile drive-by-malware bugs. But if the java codebase would have gotten the same intensive care th…

Java's greatest sin for the web was not having the JVM have access to the DOM like javascript.

The web's greatest sin was allowing programmatic access to the DOM, IMO.

Interactive sites suck, if you want that, use a sandbox so I can easily discard it.

Re: On Asm.js

#105

Post by samsquire »

Could we combine ASM.js and "native web libraries?" (see https://github.com/samsquire/ideas#51-native-web-libraries)

Compile some non-Javascript code. Create a package containing the native code. Serve ASM.js and the native web library.

This package is then installed in the browser and the browser switches to it when it detects code that is about to be used that matches the installed web library signature.

If the browser supports native web libraries, it uses that. Otherwise it falls back to ASM.js.

Either way, we gain performance and we can compile code natively AND to ASM.js.

Re: On Asm.js

#106

Post by Recoil42 »

leokun wrote: post #28
fidotron wrote: post #26

This discussion is missing the simple point that the web is rapidly gaining all the flaws that Flash used to have, without the nice (for some) editing environment. The web really isn't suited for app development at all, as the native mobile markets have demonstrated, while the viability of it as a document delivery platform diminishes every time the content gets hidden behind a massive layer of scripts.

> the web is rapidly gaining all the flaws that Flash used to have False. 1. Modern JavaScript vms are sandboxed, not native plugins with unending security holes. 2. It's nearly all open standards and open source, not proprietary closed source controlled by one company. OpenGL, EcmaScript, W3, Mozilla, Chromium, blink, webkit. 3. It works on mobile devices, flash doesn't. 4. The tools are out there. Check out appcele…

1. Modern JavaScript vms are sandboxed, not native plugins with unending security holes.

Flash actually was sandboxed. Poorly, yes -- but so were JS VMs until very recently. It was only a matter of time.

2. It's nearly all open standards and open source, not proprietary closed source controlled by one company. OpenGL, EcmaScript, W3, Mozilla, Chromium, blink, webkit.

While the Flash IDE itself was closed-sourced, the format itself was almost entirely open-source -- and third-party tools have been available for a long time to compile SWFs on the level: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash#Open_Screen_Project

3. It works on mobile devices, flash doesn't.

Entirely a political argument.

6. Don't think Flash ever had the kind of momentum JavaScript has. Like has anyone ever made a derby.js for Flash? A sharejs? Compiled other languages to ActionScript With source maps to help?

This is a tautological argument. "Javascript is better because Javascript is better"

Re: On Asm.js

#107

Post by ben0x539 »

omeid2 wrote: post #14
frik wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked website has an horrible animated background picture. Reading the text is almost impossible with IE 11. Screenshot: http://postimg.org/image/46p2krx95/

I hate to be that guy, but you're using IE. On a serious note, you can't really blame people for not supporting a browser that needs hack for every single version. Related: http://www.paulirish.com/2011/browser-market-pollution-iex-i...

Meh, delivering a bunch of text with some images and hyperlinks inbetween was pretty much a solved problem twenty years ago. It's nice that there's still progress being made towards doing more interesting things on the web, but if you have trouble pushing text and images to IE the problem might not lie with IE.

Re: On Asm.js

#108

Post by m0a0t0 »

soapdog wrote: post #34
pwang wrote: post #25

It's very simple - there is no magic here. asm.js is just a "pidgin instruction set architecture", to allow communication between an emerging set of VMs - the browser runtimes - and a compiler backend. (The front-ends are the LLVM front-ends.) The article is exactly right in saying that it's a way to route around JS. Javascript fanboys should not be praising asm.js, because it's a way to route around them. (Which is…

pwang, there are some people who actually enjoy coding in JS, believe me I am one of them. One cool thing about JS is that you have runtimes for it in computers, tablets, phones, TVs and most current videogames so you can experiment and build stuff for a variety of hardware that no other language can reach as easily (of course you can reach anything with C but it is not easier). Remember all that could be done in JS…

I (not pwang) think it's an abortion of a language because the syntax, scoping and the language as are a whole is a pain to use. Sure, it runs on pretty much everything but that doesn't mean it's suddenly enjoyable to use. The only outstanding feature of JS is that it runs on lots of stuff but it need not be the only one.

As you say getting other languages to run is a good thing because those who don't like JS don't have to use it (or indirectly use it with stuff like Coffeescript).

Re: On Asm.js

#109

Post by wwweston »

m0a0t0 wrote: post #108
soapdog wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pwang, there are some people who actually enjoy coding in JS, believe me I am one of them. One cool thing about JS is that you have runtimes for it in computers, tablets, phones, TVs and most current videogames so you can experiment and build stuff for a variety of hardware that no other language can reach as easily (of course you can reach anything with C but it is not easier). Remember all that could be done in JS…

I (not pwang) think it's an abortion of a language because the syntax, scoping and the language as are a whole is a pain to use. Sure, it runs on pretty much everything but that doesn't mean it's suddenly enjoyable to use. The only outstanding feature of JS is that it runs on lots of stuff but it need not be the only one. As you say getting other languages to run is a good thing because those who don't like JS don't…

The ideas that CoffeeScript is an acceptable replacement for JS and that "the language as a whole is a pain to use" aren't compatible.

Re: On Asm.js

#110

Post by ris »

leokun wrote: post #28
fidotron wrote: post #26

This discussion is missing the simple point that the web is rapidly gaining all the flaws that Flash used to have, without the nice (for some) editing environment. The web really isn't suited for app development at all, as the native mobile markets have demonstrated, while the viability of it as a document delivery platform diminishes every time the content gets hidden behind a massive layer of scripts.

> the web is rapidly gaining all the flaws that Flash used to have False. 1. Modern JavaScript vms are sandboxed, not native plugins with unending security holes. 2. It's nearly all open standards and open source, not proprietary closed source controlled by one company. OpenGL, EcmaScript, W3, Mozilla, Chromium, blink, webkit. 3. It works on mobile devices, flash doesn't. 4. The tools are out there. Check out appcele…

> 1. Modern JavaScript vms are sandboxed, not native plugins with unending security holes.

Right, (and I'm also in part replying to my sibling replies here) can we stop talking about "sandbox"ing as though it's something concrete and real?

Something being "sandboxed" doesn't really mean anything - or rather it does, but only in an abstract way. Everyone who uses the word "sandboxed" means something slightly different, and every time in history someone has implemented a "sandbox"ing" system, their idea of "sandboxing" is slightly different.

One person's "sandboxed" means "disables language access to the functions that could affect the system" where another person's "sandboxed" means "uses clever os features to isolate all execution into a separate container".

This is why you can endlessly debate whether x or y is or isn't "sandboxed".

Post reply on HN