Is this a meme or can it be actually useful?
WebAssembly
Julian Myers
Zachary Harris
It's a meme and it's fucking disgusting. Why the fuck does anyone need a low-level programming language for web development when there's already a bunch of shit tier garbage for making sites that have a plethora of vulnerabilities and don't even work properly, or are a pain the ass to use? The only web framework in my opinion that's worth using is Django/Python. It's not like there's already a way to bypass a Kernel's shitty countermeasures with a JIT spray from the VM that JavaScript uses, because the design of it is absolute fucking trash.
Oliver Ward
How else are they supposed to make the next Silverlight? :^)
Wyatt Davis
It's pretty useful to exploit authors I imagine.
Tyler Cook
It's going to be useful. The browser as an application container has increasingly usurped that responsibility from the O/S, being held back only by the use of client-side JavaScript (a trash language/runtime) as the web's de facto assembly language. Web Assembly will replace flash, applets, silverlight, etc. with a standard, and its got enough industry backing for adoption.
As far as security, the responsibility for application sandboxing will move from plugin developers to systems engineers and computer scientists. All browser plugins for all browsers could be deployed as a single bytecode library, inherently sandboxed by the API and runtime. Fine grained permissions for each app would presumably be similar to what you see in Android, but more powerful.
Ryder Davis
Because JavaScript is shit. Wasm as it currently is is targeted at things like 3D games and the rare shit that benefits from doing a lot of local processing.
Next gen wasm will include a GC or facilities for making one, meaning we'll finally have proper languages to write frontend with that don't have to compile to JavaScript.
junior dev spotte
Jeremiah Green
Oh, and DOM access.
Current wasm still has to bridge to JS to update the DOM, meaning it's pretty useless for webdev.
Liam Perez
hopefuly a step forward, if it will allow gradual phase-out of JS, and choose-your-own runtime per site becomes the norm.
it's basically nacl both google and mozilla can agree on.
as for retards "hurr durr flash, activex" etc, they can be safely ignored, as they obviously have no understanding of the underlying sandboxing mechanism.
wasm type sandboxing is one of the safer user-level sandbox one can get (small contact surface), provided that the cancer called js is cut off from it eventually.
This is already the case. All modern operating systems (ie linux, bsd) have proper sandboxing (seccomp, capsicum). Unfortunately in places where it matters - Microsoft and Apple, only token permission models are implemented (object-level perms and MAC, respectively), which aren't sandbox as such as there's no possibility for hypervisor/guest role separation.
It's almost as if the usual suspects didn't want competitors provisioning competing app platforms with help of meaningful OS-level sandbox - they actively cockblock it. No, they don't care it that it makes browser sandbox escapes trivial on their platforms, either.
Cameron Allen
It's a fucking stupid idea to be running some random web code. They're never gonna learn, just shuffle the problem around a bit and pretend it goes away.
Leo Garcia
wasm is currently in MVP phase. Aside from dependency on js, it also lacks some pretty important features, such as direct manipulation of stack (needed for proper setjmp/longjmp, and exception stack unwinding) - making the compiled code inefficient pretty much in the same way emscripten does.
Later on after MVP, proper cpu target is planned. I'd not count on dom access (dom model is almost as fucked up as JS itself, so why bother), but direct access to webgl and HID without js are pretty high on priority list.
Thomas Bennett
...
Julian Baker
Nice try, skiddy.
Jose Evans
It's a meme.
Why ?
Because it's pushed by mozilla and google.
Why is it pushed by mozilla and google ?
Imagine that you can make triple A game work on a server and not using the performance of the server but only the client ?
Cool isn't it ?
Now imagine you buy a game 60$ and it's only digital.
You just have to connect to their website via your browser and begin to play the game.
Cool isn't it ?
Now imagine a year after you have bought you decide to connect to the server.
You try but you can't.
The server was shut down and a new product appeared.
It's not has good has the old one and you want to play the game that you played on your computer.
But you have no binary.exe or cd to install it back.
This is what web assembly his.
It's nice and all but it's basically losing freedom 0 entirely, from top to bottom.
And don't let me started on the incomprehensible bullshit that gets loaded into your "sandboxed" browser.
It's also by itself a perfect DRM/EME technology.
It's a nice project by itself technologically speaking.
But it's saying CIA and DATAMINING® all over it.
The only people who are supporting this are either gullible web dev enthusiast, CIA (and similar) or Corporations.
Hudson Cook
This
Evan Lewis
This problem can entirely be avoided by people not buying that shit. But somehow I have a feeling that's not going to happen.
Ryder Clark
Same artificial restriction can be (and on some occasion, was) introduced in desktop software.
This does not even make sense in the context. Why would single player game need to have anything to do with a server?
Adrian Richardson
Why would simcity® (by EA) need to have a mandatory internet connection to work if you play single player ?
You don't ask yourself the good questions user.
It's "why not" and not "why".
Charles Diaz
The problem you're describing has nothing to do with wasm, but rather an industry business model already at work in desktop applications. Unfortunately people are willing to buy this software and so it will continue. "Free" wasm apps fetched from the net would be cached locally and not need to phone home.
Luke Lopez
Looks like I'll have to post it.
Colton Harris
No.
Just like with javascript with web-assembly you loose:
But you also loose:
not excluded:
You don't loose freedom two since you can share the link of the server tho.
Computer freedom is very simple user just stay in the four freedom that RMS created and that Tim Berners-Lee followed (until this year).
Again what's the point of it from being cached if you can't understand it ?
It's the same has saying
HTML has horrible has it his, is a baby language and simple to understand.
Cooper Ross
Next thing we are going to have it's Operating systems in a computer/browser.
This will never happen
What do you think user ?
user ?.....
Jose Price
Windows 95 already implemented in browser.
Jaxon Clark
The thing is that.
When you say to a corporation that is pushing that sort of shit.
You can't say this it shit and that's all.
After all the hype that has been made you Have to catalyses it somewhere.
It sound dumb, yes I know, but it's exactly what CIA user is doing on the Holla Forums board by making fake dubs.
But that's not only about dubs it's also just simple marketing shit like shill AMD/ATI/Intel/nVidia threads.
First we need to understand what is hype.
Hype is the process of excitement/enjoyment of someone.
It's basically building positive thoughts in the mind of the user about X thing.
But it's also making negative thoughts about anything else that isn't the X positive thing.
Not all people are subject to this because they think before doing anything else.
These kind of people will dig from 0 to F to see if it's worthy of getting their attention.
But lets be honest there isn't a lot of people doing this and most people just follow the bandwagon.
So instead of saying
You need to say
You will begin to get the attention of more people than just saying.
This is not easy it's basically memeing another technology against another technology that's being memed by multiple corporations.
But that's just he means of transporting the message.
What about building a similar but not freedom taking technology ?
Can any of the free software community be asked to see what they can do ?
Not likely between the FSF, linux foundation BSD and EFF who are in constant bickering either it's because of old feuds either it's because of SJWs or CIA/corporation spooks.
This is where all the theory falls a part.
I remember a time where people communicated more and with better relations with 54k connections than what we have today.
What happened ?
Cameron Green
I'm specifically confused by that part. The DRM part is of course obvious from:
Samuel Johnson
Basically invited SJWs inside now they are struggling against it.
Working with corporations and are corrupted.
Still have grudges because of old feuds with the FSF.
Old feuds with the FSF to the point of changing from GCC to LLVM.
Maybe some CIA spooks too.
SJWs all the way up. (pic related)
eff.org
Brody Young
The Linux Foundation has always been a syndicate made up of corporations since day 1 of its existence. The Linux Foundation has no grudges or feuds with the FSF.
Jackson Ramirez
Tell that to Torvalds.
Elijah Gray
I'm glad we can now run bare-metal applications in our web browsers instead of locally on our machines!
Hell, we don't even need local storage anymore! Everything can be On the Cloud™! We can just start releasing computers with only web browsers and no other applications! Hell, the user won't even need to access any folder besides the Download Folder! Thanks Web Assembly for the future!
Gavin Williams
Torvalds has no grudges or feuds with the FSF.
Joshua Morgan
Prove it.
He still hasn't changed the licenses of the kernel and went full retard against RMS in the 2000s because of the GPLv3 draft.
That's why he change the linux kernel from GPLv2+ to GPLv2.
Ian Ortiz
Disagreement with the GPLv3 license does not mean Torvalds has a grudge with the FSF. The only thing it means is that Torvalds disagrees with the GPLv3 license. I disagree with Stallman on many issues but that doesn't imply I hold a grudge against him.
Anthony Ross
Hum...
Touche user
Ethan Stewart
It's pretty useful to google
David Cooper
It's pretty simple.
Of course simcity can't be used on a server, it was actually your pc doing the job, the server is just a DRM/mandatory proxy to connect players even if they don't want or need to.
With simcity you had to have an internet connection to play the game.
And since EA hire pajeet level of programmer they don't resist long to crackers who dedicated their existence to look into assembly code.
Basically with web assembly you don't download full understandable source.
With javascript either, depending on how it's made.
So by itself it's a DRM and also non-free creating tool software just like javascript his.
And everything is executed in the web browser.
No server side.
It's already partly compiled you only execute a part of binary.
That's why I say it doesn't require the server for processing the software.
What funny it's that they didn't invent anything people in 1999/2000 did implement it in internet explorer and worked great.
For now mozzila and google are in the shilling phase trying to push their shit.
Honestly if they could make a web assembly has free has HTML I wouldn't say anything but it's not.
And the favored application for this technology is SAASS
gnu.org
And LLVM
Jonathan Wilson
Well, that's the point. 90% of online js is "compiled", and deobfuscating is the same as decompiling wasm binary. Might as well use virtual machine suitable for that while at it - wasm. If ton of javascript quirkyness gets fixed in the process, it's still better than sticking with js which is by all accounts the worst programming language devised right after cobol.
You can't force open source on audience which has almost zero interest in semantic legibility of code they distribute.
Hunter Roberts
its a meme. i can tell by the marketing campaign