Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The point is that Google isn't self-motivated enough to get an Open-PNaCl-Whatever in shape to be standardizable on their own. They need Moz and Opera to push them, not rebuke them. Opera, Mozilla, Microsoft and Apple can't help Google push a standard that doesn't make sense for the web. I don't understand what you want them to do. Help from the other browser vendors can't magically fix the problems already mention…
What I want is to /eventually/ get PNaCl with WebGL/WebAudio/IndexDB/whatever APIs make Mozilla happy. I make high-end 3D apps to pay my bills. I want to bring them to the web. But, what I don't want is to go through Adobe's content approval process in order to not be 15 years behind the technology curve (Cube2=Quake2=1997). JS+WebGL is great and I'll keep pounding on it. But, building JS into the world's VM because…
Well, NaCl is in no way a step towards that. They are completely separate technologies: One is a modified gcc compiler and custom validator in the browser, the other is a modified LLVM compiler and another modified LLVM compiler in the browser. The only similarity between them is the name, and some of the SFI approaches they utilize. But their code, potential spec for standardization some day, startup times, portability etc. are entirely different.
Supporting NaCl now would not help out PNaCl in any way. (In fact, the opposite could be argued.)
> But, building JS into the world's VM because of the asteroid-like inertia behind JS is frustrating in a similar way to watching Intel bolt stuff on to a pocket calculator CPU (8086) until we get a CoreI7. It obviously /can/ work, but...
First thing, I do understand your frustration. I feel it too.
But JS isn't just there because of inertia. There is no other valid option, all the proposals have major flaws, either technical or legal. JS also has its flaws, to be sure. But since the others are not clearly better (running faster, but only on certain CPUs is not better), JS will win because it does have inertia.