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

WASM Wayland Web (WWW)

joeyh.name

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 226 posts

Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)

#101

Post by eadmund »

zfg wrote: post #94
JimDabell wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> WebAssembly is different. WebAssembly brings every language to the web. Flash didn't. The problem with Flash was not that it only supported a single language. The problem with Flash is that it opted out of the web architecture because they only wanted your browser window to be a surface for an executable to draw into. > But WebAssembly applications can also manipulate the DOM like JavaScript. Flash could do that to…

> The problem with Flash is that it opted out of the web architecture WebAssembly doesn't. WebAssembly is part of the web's architecture. It has been for 8 years. You've doubtless run WebAssembly without even realizing it. Google Sheets for example uses WebAssembly: https://web.dev/case-studies/google-sheets-wasmgc Amazon Prime Video uses WebAssembly: https://www.amazon.science/blog/how-prime-video-updates-its-... >…

> WebAssembly is part of the web's architecture.

It’s formally part of the web’s architecture, but it is bolted on and violates the fundamental principles underlying the web’s architecture. It’s much like a worse JavaScript in that way.

Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)

#102

Post by regularjack »

eadmund wrote: post #99
JimDabell wrote: post #36

The web had this before briefly. Back in the 90s and 00s, some people just wanted to use Flash. They treated the web browser like it was just a way to run executables in a window. Nothing worked right. Bookmarks, search engines, command-line tools, user preferences for font size, user scripts, view source, right-click menus, ad blockers, auto-translations, user stylesheets, assistive tools, bookmarklets, deep links……

The difference between now and then is that people back then wanted bookmarks, search engines, CLIs, user preferences, user scripts, view source, right-click menus, ad blockers, auto-translations, user stylesheets, assistive tools, bookmarklets, deep links and so forth. While some of us still do, the great mass of web users now just want TV on their smartphones: they want an attention-consumption device to distract t…

People still want all those things.

Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)

#103

Post by t43562 »

TingPing wrote: post #59
aredox wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at the market share. And look at how much breakage report there is with Firefox vs. Chrome or Safari (not to say the return of "this website works better with Chrome" disclaimers, as if we were back to IE6).

Do you have a source for real world sites broken? It’s extremely rare for me and I exclusively use Safari and Firefox.

half the time it's my choice of security settings and not Firefox. So... IMO %$#^% it - if a site doesn't support firefox I'm strongly disinclined to load up chrome to use it. There are lots of sites and lots of businesses.

Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)

#104

Post by Philpax »

berkes wrote: post #95
jfoster wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the way that AI is unfolding right now, this might be an outdated problem fairly soon. In 2026 if you can just tell your AI to build a new full-featured browser before you go to sleep, you might have something in the morning.

AI might be heading towards a situation where you can "tell it to build a full featured browser". But this narrative is naive at best, and frankly, getting annoying too. Especially because it gets repeated by people who know even less about "programming" than those who start this idea in the first place. That AI cannot maintain this browser. It cannot monitor and fix performance issues. It won't be able to refactor s…

I mean, the goal is to get it to a state where it can do those things. There are benchmarks for autonomously resolving issues that are being hill-climbed as we speak: https://www.swebench.com/

I don't know how far away it is, but never say never.

Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)

#105

Post by zfg »

eadmund wrote: post #101
zfg wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with Flash is that it opted out of the web architecture WebAssembly doesn't. WebAssembly is part of the web's architecture. It has been for 8 years. You've doubtless run WebAssembly without even realizing it. Google Sheets for example uses WebAssembly: https://web.dev/case-studies/google-sheets-wasmgc Amazon Prime Video uses WebAssembly: https://www.amazon.science/blog/how-prime-video-updates-its-... >…

> WebAssembly is part of the web's architecture. It’s formally part of the web’s architecture, but it is bolted on and violates the fundamental principles underlying the web’s architecture. It’s much like a worse JavaScript in that way.

> it is bolted on

WebAssembly is no more bolted on than JavaScript is and JavaScript has been part of the web for 29 years.

> violates the fundamental principles underlying the web’s architecture.

Which ones?

Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)

#106

Post by apatheticonion »

eadmund wrote: post #99
JimDabell wrote: post #36

The web had this before briefly. Back in the 90s and 00s, some people just wanted to use Flash. They treated the web browser like it was just a way to run executables in a window. Nothing worked right. Bookmarks, search engines, command-line tools, user preferences for font size, user scripts, view source, right-click menus, ad blockers, auto-translations, user stylesheets, assistive tools, bookmarklets, deep links……

The difference between now and then is that people back then wanted bookmarks, search engines, CLIs, user preferences, user scripts, view source, right-click menus, ad blockers, auto-translations, user stylesheets, assistive tools, bookmarklets, deep links and so forth. While some of us still do, the great mass of web users now just want TV on their smartphones: they want an attention-consumption device to distract t…

I launch Chrome with a bunch of flags to disable security and have a bunch of client scripts to override websites. I'm this close from creating my own browser based on Chromium

Re: WASM Wayland Web (WWW)

#107

Post by Philpax »

pilgrim0 wrote: post #90

Someone tell him that web is about data, not apps. A markdown only web has much more chances to be relevant than this.

Well, I don't know about that being relevant [0], but at least it isn't blatantly offensive to the concept of providing information like this proposal is.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_(protocol)

Post reply on HN