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

Not So Fast: Analyzing the Performance of WebAssembly vs. Native Code

usenix.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 212 posts

Re: Not So Fast: Analyzing the Performance of WebAssembly vs. Native Code

#61

Post by bitwize »

microtonal wrote: post #47
0815test wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Until OS vendors are willing to provide a safe sandbox to run untrusted code in Thing is, "safe" OS-sandboxes are not safe; "local" privilege escalation vulnerabilities are still pervasive. Until OS's are safe enough that I can run `sudo -u nobody untrusted_binary` and not even think about the possibility of it taking over my system, something like the WASM sandbox (perhaps extended with WASI and other optional mec…

The the browser sandbox is just another sandbox, as we have seen with targeted attacks on Firefox two weeks back. Why is everybody so insistent on running untrusted code?

Because the Web won't work without running untrusted code.

Re: Not So Fast: Analyzing the Performance of WebAssembly vs. Native Code

#63

Post by mises »

10% slower is actually not that bad, when compared to the safety and portability not given by C/C++. Past 10% performance parity is the stuff of performance optimization challenges; we may have to accept that.

We're all putting up with regular 10% drops in our CPU performance because intel was stupid about alot of things; maybe we could give 10% up for common applications (let's face it, most aren't CPU-bound) having more safety.

Of course, I don't know if wasm is the answer. Jury's still out for whether it's great in native or not; honestly, GUI is still the issue.

Re: Not So Fast: Analyzing the Performance of WebAssembly vs. Native Code

#64

Post by kristiandupont »

FpUser wrote: post #40
Epskampie wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because this time around we will have instant (no install) apps that are inherently sandboxed? Seems like a pretty big win to me.

There is no free lunch in this universe. For big applications like CAD there will be nothing "instant" for in case of deployment as web apps. Downloading native packed archive and running install may actually be faster.

Sure, there are exceptions. Cinemas also still receive movies as physical harddrives for a number of reasons, but for most people and situations, streaming is fine.

Re: Not So Fast: Analyzing the Performance of WebAssembly vs. Native Code

#65

Post by Razengan »

flohofwoe wrote: post #24
FpUser wrote: post #16

Ok. At some point in the future the browser/wasm will have won. So instead of Linux/Windows/OSX we will have Firefox/Safari/Chrome/Whatever all with their own implementation gotchas, missing features and performance loss. All for the sake of browser vendors trying to displace the existing native deployment platforms. They sure have nice financial incentive. Why do we - developers fall into this trap? We've been there…

But it's the other way around. Can you distribute a native application on macOS without Apple's blessing? No, you can't (not when Catalina will be out anyway). And Windows is closing the "gap" really fast too. Try distributing a native installer without the browser or SmartScreen bringing up a scare-dialog-box. Until OS vendors are willing to provide a safe sandbox to run untrusted code in, and untangled from a non-t…

> Can you distribute a native application on macOS without Apple's blessing? No, you can't

Yes, you can. You have always been able to.

> (not when Catalina will be out anyway).

Yes, you will be able to.

I just downloaded a music tracker/MOD player from the Mesozoic (well, not quite) and it runs fine on Catalina Developer Preview 4.

I can understand the confusion – I had the same concerns while watching this year's WWDC's Platforms State of the Union – but please do not spread FUD, or accept it as true without credible sources.

Apple does require developers to update their old apps now and then, and that may not be convenient for some devs, but I feel it's overall good for users, and they don't force anyone to distribute via the App Store only or give Apple a % of their sales.

In fact, a few companies have withdrawn their products from the Mac App Store, like Sketch and Coda and others.

Re: Not So Fast: Analyzing the Performance of WebAssembly vs. Native Code

#66

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

microtonal wrote: post #42
flohofwoe wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's the other way around. Can you distribute a native application on macOS without Apple's blessing? No, you can't (not when Catalina will be out anyway). And Windows is closing the "gap" really fast too. Try distributing a native installer without the browser or SmartScreen bringing up a scare-dialog-box. Until OS vendors are willing to provide a safe sandbox to run untrusted code in, and untangled from a non-t…

But it's the other way around. Can you distribute a native application on macOS without Apple's blessing? No, you can't (not when Catalina will be out anyway). Yes you can: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/unsigned-apps-catalyst-... WASM is the next best thing to an open, yet secure, platform. So, instead of walled gardens with signed and checked applications (bad). We have to run untrusted and unchecked code of…

> Maybe we should make Linux an acceptable platform for more people rather than optimizing for proprietary web applications that you don't even own a copy of anymore.

Won't ever happen for two reasons: 1) The Linux Desktop community would have to admit that there are better ways to do things, and 2) They'd have to agree on what those things are. 20 years of Linux Desktop history show these things to be impossible.

Theoretically, a new community could spring up and put a new userland on top of the Linux kernel, like Android did, but it would seem like the people who have the interest in doing such a thing (like myself) lack enough time, talent, and/or ability to organize sufficiently to pull it off. Not to mention that we'd all have to agree too.

Re: Not So Fast: Analyzing the Performance of WebAssembly vs. Native Code

#67

Post by GeneralMaximus »

jakobegger wrote: post #25

Can someone explain a concrete use case for web assembly? Are there projects out there using web assembly in production? What kind of application needs more performance than Javascript can offer, but doesn't need full native performance?

Figma (https://www.figma.com/) is a design tool that runs in the browser and makes heavy use of WASM. It's definitely slower than using a native app like Sketch, but not slow enough to be completely impractical. A few design people I work with here in India have switched to Figma from Sketch, and they seem very pleased with the results.

I can see WASM becoming useful for enabling apps that do real-time audio/video/image processing in the browser. Games are another obvious use case.

Maybe one day I'll be able to run an Ableton-lite right in the browser.

Re: Not So Fast: Analyzing the Performance of WebAssembly vs. Native Code

#68

Post by kristiandupont »

microtonal wrote: post #54
not_a_cop75 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is obviously that web apps can be directly competitive with binaries, sans the same level of security, given they operate a lite version of the application. This makes it theoretically possible to run everything via cloud, if you didn't already see that coming.

This makes it theoretically possible to run everything via cloud, if you didn't already see that coming. Yes. But my question is why would I want this? I won't own the software anymore. The web has shown over and over again to have far less privacy. The vendor could disappear, change their terms, change their fees any time. As a customer/user you become basically powerless. And for non-cloud applications: what's the…

> The web has shown over and over again to have far less privacy

This may be inherent to the web but a native app would (given the current level of sandboxing) have more freedom to make http requests than a webapp. So there would be no win in forcing the bad actors to make native apps.

The argument about owning the software is a valid one, and I for one am not terribly excited about the continuous updates to everything which sometimes changes the UI of a tool that I use and know and cost me time out of the blue. However, I am using wallabyjs, a "native" app (plugin to vscode) and it updates itself practically every other day. I think that reality is hitting all kinds of software anyway.

Re: Not So Fast: Analyzing the Performance of WebAssembly vs. Native Code

#69

Post by kristiandupont »

jakobegger wrote: post #25

Can someone explain a concrete use case for web assembly? Are there projects out there using web assembly in production? What kind of application needs more performance than Javascript can offer, but doesn't need full native performance?

In addition to the examples given, I offer the opinion that using the same language for front- and backend is nice. I currently achieve this with JS, but it would be nice to be able to do the same with, say, Rust.

Re: Not So Fast: Analyzing the Performance of WebAssembly vs. Native Code

#70

Post by [deleted] »

FpUser wrote: post #16

Ok. At some point in the future the browser/wasm will have won. So instead of Linux/Windows/OSX we will have Firefox/Safari/Chrome/Whatever all with their own implementation gotchas, missing features and performance loss. All for the sake of browser vendors trying to displace the existing native deployment platforms. They sure have nice financial incentive. Why do we - developers fall into this trap? We've been there…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN