Mozilla’s Rejection of NativeClient Hurts the Open Web

Post by stcredzero » Sun, Jan 02, 2011, 1:46 AM UTC

azakai wrote: post #90

stcredzero wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NaCl is one of those technologies that I secretly hope fails. Pull the plug on x86 already, FFS. There's no reason why NaCl should be inherently limited to x86. x86 is currently the biggest platform, but there's no reason why NaCL couldn't switch to a "Universal" payload like OS X has, combining the 2 largest ISA. (x86 and arm?) EDIT: I've since read that NaCl is working on LLVM, which would be even better.

1. LLVM is not portable. PNaCl is trying to make it so, but it's a work in progress. 2. A 'universal' payload with ARM and x86, would just work on them. What if in 5 years we have new architectures? Only supporting ARM and x86 would hold back innovation there.

Post by MikeW » Sun, Jan 02, 2011, 3:58 AM UTC

Post by stcredzero » Sun, Jan 02, 2011, 6:39 AM UTC

rizzzer wrote: post #92

stcredzero wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Yes, it's a work in progress, just like NaCl. 2) You're posing a what-if for 5 years down the road? Your horizon is really that far? Sounds like grasping for straws to me.

Are you saying we shouldn't think 5 years ahead? GP was right, including just x86 and ARM is not good enough. Heck it even ignores x86_64 right now, and won't support new SIMD extensions that come out from time to time. Not to mention be a barrier to anyone introducing a new arch, as GP said. Thinking ahead here is vital.

Post by stcredzero » Sun, Jan 02, 2011, 7:36 AM UTC

rizzzer wrote: post #96

stcredzero wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thinking ahead is good, but precluding a technology because a particular implementation would have to be changed in 5 years is just flat-out silly for tech. You couldn't ever buy a car with criteria like that. Grasping for straws.

The point is that if you have only x86 and ARM binaries, you can't run them directly on a new architecture. It isn't a matter of changing an implementation. It's like trying to run a C64 binary today. The only practical way is emulation, which is slow - but thankfully fast enough in this case. In general though, it means new architectures will run more slowly than existing ones. That's not a good thing.

Post by carussell » Sun, Jan 02, 2011, 3:41 PM UTC

1337p337 wrote: post #57

sid0 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI, Firefox extensions can contain native code. Of course, you need to include a binary for every OS/arch/Mozilla version triple you wish to support.

I mentioned extensions; the first half of my previous job was spent on FF plugin development. Once in a while, one of us would get frustrated enough to try looking at how extensions are built for FF; never worth it. (Our IE guy was enviable in the sense that he only had to produce two DLLs, and got to work in his language of choice.)