Tell HN: The hidden meaning of Google Closure == Closed Source

#1

Post by ice_man » Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 9:49 PM UTC

While closure is itself open-source, the compiled output it generates with advanced optimizations enabled is obfuscated beyond recognition. A top-level function may get renamed to a single-character like "a", or simply inlined.

If you've tried reading the JS source code for Google Maps, for example, then you know what I mean. The net effect is that the JS code becomes analogous to binary files -- effectively unparsable by humans without effort that is greater than starting from scratch.

I think that the release of Google Closure is ushering with it a new era of web applications whose source code is as good as opaque to human eyes.

I don't have a blog, so I figured I'd just blurt it on here.

Thoughts?

Re: Tell HN: The hidden meaning of Google Closure == Closed Source

#2

Post by yan » Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 9:54 PM UTC

I don't see it as an issue. When something is "open source" it's always with the consent of the author and they'll still publish the source. Will this make it harder for you to peep to see what web apps are doing? Probably, but this isn't a licensing or an 'open source' issue.

Re: Tell HN: The hidden meaning of Google Closure == Closed Source

#3

Post by nar » Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 10:09 PM UTC

That's just javascript minimization. Standard way of reducing page load times. It's been around way longer than Google Closure, just look at YUI Compressor.

It may stop anyone from looking at a page's source code, but I'd think most developers would put greatly reducing load times ahead of having your javascript being freely read.

Re: Tell HN: The hidden meaning of Google Closure == Closed Source

#4

Post by ice_man » Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 10:25 PM UTC

yan wrote: post #2

I don't see it as an issue. When something is "open source" it's always with the consent of the author and they'll still publish the source. Will this make it harder for you to peep to see what web apps are doing? Probably, but this isn't a licensing or an 'open source' issue.

Yes, but before Google Closure, the internet was "open source" by default. I mean am using "open source" as a strict antonym to "closed source" rather than in the legal sense. With Google Closure, developers for the first time have a practical option of making the source code of their application unparsable to the human eye. Despite the fact that it is illegal to download MP3s, 95% of all MP3 downloads. Now imagine if it was impossible to download MP3s illegally -- it would significantly impact the music industry. Analogously, Google Closure makes it virtually impossible to read the source code of websites. Given that the entire Microsoft Monopoly was founded on the fact that its source code was unreadable to the public, I think the implications of this are significant.