141–150 of 259 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the process, specialised web browsers such as browsers for the blind, will be rendered useless.
Probably, or will make use of whatever features the "native" frameworks might support. Gtk+ and WPF have very good support for people with disabilities.
The harm to disabled users remains.
> JavaScript has a bad reputation, but in reality is a good language for what is was designed for: quickly write small scripts. That's a little condescending, considering the amount of non-trivial, critical applications written in JavaScript. And it ignores the progress made on the language and tooling of the last oh i don't know, 20 years.
Non-trivial, sure. Critical? In what sense?
It is not Javascript per se, but the so-called "modern" browser that creates problems for so many users. The problem is not even that this program exists. The problem is that users are coerced to use it and it is controlled by a third party that needs to sell something, either to advertisers or to users.
Again, there is nothing inherently threatening about Javascript. There are many languages to choose from and anyone can choose not to use it. It is not tied to the web browser anymore. Unfortunately it is from that association that it gains a stigma like the one the author suggests with his "war on Javascript" comment.
Today, there are a variety of standlone JS interpreters, of all sizes, and the language is routinely used outside of the browser. Peer-to-peer projects use it. Tiny interpreters for microcontrollers use it. Javascript can live on without the corporate web browser.
The problem is the irrational assumption one must use a corporate sponsored web browser to do anything interesting with a computer. This program automatically runs code from "anonymous", commercial third parties, which today happens to be JS, using the user's computer resources. The user today does not get to choose the language, but more importantly, given the level of coercion and absence of alternatives, she does not get to choose whether or not to run the third party code.
I know a lot of people long for the days when the web was just text and a few JPGs. I personally am waiting for the web to become a rich, ubiquitous, standardised application delivery platform that works on any device. I think web assembly adds to the richness while being fairly standardised, so I welcome it!
Lots of fancy words for bloat. Oftentimes malicious bloat at that.
I am betting when WebAssembly gets mature all Web sites will look like Flash, just coded on the framework of choice, thus finally making the browser just yet another VM.
Another terribly inefficient, klunky psuedo-VM, if the current trend is any indication. It's like 20 years ago all over again: it's Motif all over again, but dressed in different clothes.
The more I read about WebAssembly, the more I think it is the rebirth of Flash, or Silverlight, or JavaFX without being tied to a proprietary entity (Adobe, MS, Oracle). Will it be really good for the web in general? I guess it will depend on the motivation of those who would peruse the technology.
There is no "war against Javascript" as the author suggests. It just happens to be the chosen language of the now insidious ad-driven corporate-sponsored web browser. It is not Javascript per se , but the so-called "modern" browser that creates problems for so many users. The problem is not even that this program exists. The problem is that users are coerced to use it and it is controlled by a third party that needs…
Well, there's my war on Javascript, that I wage in my head every time I have to use it.
> Again, there is nothing inherently threatening about Javascript.
Well, it's not inherent, but it exists. Javascript has (had, with WebAssembly) an inherent advantage in that even though you could compile to JavaScript, there was an inherent mismatch the farther your language semantics were from it. CoffeeScript is straightforward. Others are less straightforward. Rust requires a huge amount of runtime to be shipped even for WebAssembly.
> It is not tied to the web browser anymore.
So, the beachhead is secure, time to advance into the countryside, eh? ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With all major browser JIT compiling JavaScript, aren't they already?
No, because it still is the pile of HTML, CSS and JavaScript hacks. With WebAssembly you can bypass all of it, and do your UI framework in GL, and everything else with native libraries compiled into WebAssembly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is a terrible usability nightmare waiting to happen... Seriously, DON'T do this. This breaks ctrl-f. This is unlikely to work well for people who need to enlarge text or enhance contrast due to vision impairment. This breaks screen readers. This will probably break most site archive navigators, so your content is lost to history (e.g. wayback machine). This will probably prevent Google from indexing your site,…
Too late, WebAssembly is already here. I really think it will bring Flash like web sites back, and browser vendors are the ones actually pushing it. The wheels are already in motion, with everyone trying to port their favorite language or VM into WebAssembly. For example, today it is Qt WebGL Streaming, tomorrow it might just run directly from WebAssembly. http://blog.qt.io/blog/2017/07/07/qt-webgl-streaming-merged/…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Use a code beautifier. JavaScript code isn't encrypted or compiled to binary. It is just text.
> It is just text This misses the point. Looking at a binary through a hex editor is also just text --- and the binary is also "just code", albeit at a level at which only few people are comfortable to work. Obfuscated code (and generated code in general) is clearly not the preferred form, so it hardly even counts as source code. But let's pretend your point were valid: would it remain valid with WebASM?
> But let's pretend your point were valid: would it remain valid with WebASM?
Yes (pretending GP's point were valid), because WASM has a text format[1], which is how "View Source" on the web is meant to be used for viewing WASM running in your browser. The text version can be derived from any WASM file (i.e. you can do the equivalent of beautifying JS to any arbitrary WASM).