Opinions on webassembly?

Imagine that you can make triple A game work on a server and not using 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 compiled.asm that gets loaded into your "sandboxed" browser.
It's also by itself a perfect DRM/EME technology.
It also privileges LLVM instead of GCC.
funny that google again prefers non-copyleft software licenses.

Literally using a meme language

Even FORTRAN was faster than C for a long time. This is because FORTRAN compilers were more "mature" in that they had more optimizations. It was much more reasonable to hand-optimize things in your code because of this.

Let's move everything to the web it will be more convenient You never have to leave the browser and we can teach a new generation of black girls to code using Scratch and Visual Basic IDE running in the browser

I think webdev is great for filtering out people who I wouldn't want to work with.

...

Too much parroting, 0 facts. Nowadays obfuscated JS isn't any better. Might as well go full binary. Software freedom is a political problem, not a technical one.

I only want to work with someone who's made spicy fizzbuzzes in 40 different dead languages

protip: maintaining a professional Internet presence is a direction that many companies want to attain. You're seriously limiting your work prospects by eliminating all developers with the skill to write web applications.

...

Let me understand... Web Assembly isn't actually wrote in ASM but in C?

protip: this is how computing worked in the 1970's

.. without jews and sjw retards

in javascript

But muh forums. It would be nice to move back to BBS's or mailing lists but none are actually active.

Nah, you could take your punch cards with you. And in second half of 70's you already had hobbyist micros.

newfag detected
who doesn't know about mail with cocks

Obfuscated JS can easily be deovfuscated with a Firefox add-on.

Software freedom is a technical problem because non-free software cannot be used or reimplemented without the source code, it cannot be changed to remove malicious anti-features, cannot be improved by the community and cannot be studied.

...

holy fuck...

Fortran is faster because the compiler can do more with less effort from the programmer. Fortran lets you index multidimensional arrays the normal way and it's faster, easier, and more readable than C code. Modern Fortran (since 1990) has array operations and slicing features.

These idiot "hackers" want to replace Fortran with C and Python. The C "hackers" feel threatened that scientists and engineers can write code that runs faster without using complicated low level garbage.

If it was done properly, obfuscated JS software won't be transformed into a form that's suitable for human interpretation. Obfuscated code is supposed to be as easy to comprehend as compiled object code.

Software freedom has always been a political problem because it is policy of the software distributors to grant freedom to the user of the software. Users who have freedom will have the right to access the exact corresponding source code of whatever software they are running on their computer. Without this political will for freedom, the mechanical aspect of practicing software freedom is utterly impractical to achieve.

Servers and terminals are exactly what I was implying. It was the way of the past. What was described as "the future of computing" is nothing new. Even today and into the future, nobody is forcing you to move your programs or files to the web. You do that because you choose to do it.

Is having control of a hammer political ?
No
Then software is on the same level.
Software is and always was a tool.
Stop politicizing everything.
You're just making useless borders between people.
Sure some people have created X software because of their own beliefs but ultimately free software is neutral.
It's neutral because even if you're lets say a nazi you can't stop non nazis from using it.
The only thing that can be political is the community/people.

Or not.
When suddenly all companies of the world choose to do so because or retarded marketing hype campaigns.
And these methods are then imposed to their employees.
Isn't it conditioning them to that ?
I have a friend (who isn't IT) he's responsible for (electricity, plumbing, refrigeration etc...) and when I talked to him about getting a file on a server he said to me that it was some sort of cloud.
I again said that it isn't cloud computing but a simple FTP server.
He responded by saying that it's the same thing has a cloud.
My autism what about to blow and I asked him where did he ever heard what was a cloud.
He said that the reunions with the ITs in his company that they are about to migrate their infrastructures in the cloud.

Are you seriously comparing extremely simple tangible objects to complex software code? Come back again when you don't need to resort to trivialized analogies.

found the shill

...

huff a fucking dick, you're being entirely disingenuous. you know it, too.

Hacker groups make normal fags afraid of installing software on their computers, normal fags don't dare installing anything on their PC unless its from a trusted provider

Advertising groups don't trust programmers to embed their ads into hobby software so all ads and profits remain on the browser thanks to google.

Because normal fags are too stupid to install technology that provides them access to social media through chat software, they keep using the browser for everything

Normal fags are too proud of playing video games on their computers so they end up only using browsers as their daily provider of entertainment.

Because the browser provides a one click access to any content, the browser has become the dominant software that the average user uses to access the Internet

Since the education system no longer teaches students how to create GUI programs, all GUI related classes have been converted to HTML/CSS/JS

New programmers have web development built into them as soon as they graduate

Wasm will be able to communicate with dom without passing through javascript.

That means, the chance to kill javascript insanity once and for all is soon, and we should work for it hard enough.

Dangers:

Imbecilinc people writing wasm standard could go for retarded design choices, crippling it permanently as it should be retrocompatible with every stupid desition they made.

On a license perspective yes.
If LLVM would just be under GPL I wouldn't give a dam.
This subject has long been discussed (GCC vs BSD thread).
LLVM and any other licenses that doesn't cover has much copyright bullshit than the GPLv3 will make our world in an even worse state.
Sadly it's not a question of code in this case it's a question how much the actual broken copyright system influences the code.
And LLVM inherits shit tons of the broken copyright system thanks to the BSD license.

They already did at least one .

Literally every web assembly conference is about doing everything in the web browser.

Never said otherwise.

It's technical one.

It does not work 100% of the time.

This.

Yes.

If you can't explain it simply you don't understand it well enough.
-badly quoted to Einstein.
Instead of asking for absurdities give one yourself.

A computer is a tool to do your bidding.
Software is a tool to do your bidding.
A gun is a tool to do your bidding.
Without a hand they cannot do anything.
They cannot become a tool of justice or injustice.
They cannot be politicized without a hand to wield them.
If the creators made them with intention of justice, injustice or politics it can be used in the complete opposite of the will of the creators.
Just like a blacksmith can be killed by the swords that he made the day before.

Speak or stay in silence.
But do not speak to say inanities.

I too want the same.
But not in exchange of worse.

Have you even looked into how horrible the code is for GCC? It's a actual fucking spaghetti fuck that 95% of the contributors can't even understand but it somehow still works.

I'm all for LLVM, it's better structured and when you look at the code you can read it.

So is JS right now.
Then? It's not like you can "remove" technology from history. It's not like because wasm was not a thing, suddenly software freedom is enforced. That's not how it works. Software freedom is all about licenses and people intentions, technology does not have anything to do with it.
WASM is a thing for the same reasons native binaries are a thing, and they NEED to be a thing. It does not affect in any way availability of source code.

Imagine a Web Assembly GNU C compiler. Then you can run Linux in your browser. Year of the linux desktop confirmed.

I do not care if YOU consider GCC has shit or LLVM the savior of compilers.
The only reason why BSD is switching from GCC to LLVM is because the recent versions of GCC is under GPLv3 while the one that they use is under GPLv2.
Everything else that the BSD community tries to justify is because of shit feuds they had with RMS more than a decade ago.
Like already said it not a technical problem it's a license one.

bellard.org/jslinux/

The owner of the hammer is the one who controls the hammer. If I borrow a friend's hammer, it is his policy to decide the limit of what I do to his hammer. In the first place, it is his policy to permit me to bring his hammer into my home. I need further permission if a different user of the hammer wishes to bring it to their home. It is implied that I can use his hammer according to the customary ways of hammer usage. It is implied that I am not to do other things that affect the integrity of his hammer: if I wanted to do something like this, I would need more permissions to act out those things. It is not inherently within my right to take his hammer and paint it green or to give access to a different friend: if I want to do this, I must first get permission from the owner of the hammer.

Attached to every piece of software is a bunch of policies regarding the usage of the software, the tinkering (study and modification) of the software, and also the conveyancing of the software to other parties. It is copyright law together with software distributor policies (this translates into a specific software license and access to the source code) that creates borders between people.

I don't agree. Microsoft wants to put everyone's data in the cloud, and get everyone on yearly (monthly?) subscriptions for Windows license and cloud apps shits.
Game companies also are going the way of online-only shit.
Not my problem, since I never used Windows, and don't care about games made after early 90's. But the trends are in that direction and they're being forced on most people. It's kind of like nobody wants mass muslim immigration, but it's being forced on europe anyway.

sure but reverse-engineering (obfuscated) js is probably still going to be easier than webassembly

I'd rather have my browser execute obfuscated code than binaries, thank you very much.

Good one, if a project uses (google docs, discord, whatever), what am i gonna do? Not participate at all?

Is there a practical difference? You can disassemble binaries with the same ease and accuracy that you can disobfuscate most obfuscated js.

tell that to the millions of owners of unpatchable compromised internet of pajeet devices and routers running ancient firmwares. And now 90% of Smart TV owners too, given that they can be hacked via broadcast signals with $100 worth of equipment.
Software is a tool, like a hammer or a screwdriver. It should work as such: no "DRM", no "activation processes", no "registrations", no "phoning home", no bullshit; I bought it, it's mine. It's not hard to understand.

fucking proprietary cucks I swear.

There's an abysmal difference between having your storage in your own premises and renting storage space in a data center thousands of miles away that's owned by another company.

It's the same shit, only now it runs on your browser.

When you buy software, you're not borrowing it; you're buying a copy of it. You don't return your old copies of software to the developer, do you?
You can't realistically expect to exhert control on how they will use a copy or what they will use it for (unless you live in a 1984-tier dystopia), in the same way the manufacturer can't foresee how you will use a hammer.

That's what you get for buying botnet-of-things TV.

Computers are faster than ever. JS coders usually are trash. Webassembly isn't going to make anything faster.

The whole idea is to encapsulate javascript in DRM that's a lot more difficult to reverse-engineer than modern javascript.

If webassembly ever took off, we'd end up with a bunch of websites running black box, proprietary javascript that's not any faster than what we have (thanks to retarded JS programmers). Yet we'd get some bullshit DRM.

There isn't, these retards think there is a very defined line between assembly and code. Like if assembly was some dangerous exploitable thing that can do more evil and obfuscated code magically wasn't. Might as well always do curl link | bash without fear because it's not assembly code right?. Obfuscated code can be even more dangerous and unreadable than some assembly. Tell me how this is much better than assembly: diep.io/d.js

That's why is a political problem, companies can sell you proprietary DRM bullshit that spies on you and sends data home and there is nothing technology wise you can do about it. Unless the software is completely local AND you are autistic enough to crack every single undesirable branch in there, you're fucked. And you should be grateful we are allowed (Because of politics) to even DO that shit, otherwise you could be put in fucking jail. We are not even having a discussion here, you are just rambling like a retard, just because you hate spyware doesn't mean it's a technology problem.

Could you please elaborate on how source code can be more dangerous than compiled source code?

Because the line between source code and compiled source code is diffuse. Compiled source code is supposed to be fast for computers to execute, which usually makes it harder for us humans to read, since it lacks abstraction.
But that doesn't mean source code is necessarily beautiful to read. When you reverse engineer assembly there is no hidden mysteries or mind tricks and while very hard and time consuming, it's usually straight forward. Source code on the other hand, can be much more complex and hard to decode if obfuscated, since the abstraction it allows has inherently more features than plain assembly. You can use this abstraction to make it harder to spot bugs, even without obfuscation, which in assembly can be obvious once decoded (A good example Holla Forums usually rambles about, C undefined behavior). And deliberately obfuscated code has the worst of both worlds.
But my point wasn't even that, my point is that there is nothing more dangerous about binary code than there is about source code. Both describe the very same program. The only bad thing about assembly is that is hard to read, but that can be done deliberately with obfuscation in source code. Like hell, you can even deliver assembly code and an assembly_interpreter.js and it makes no difference.
Now should a browser be able to execute code is a completely different discussion, and also a war lost long time ago. I'm personally glad we can ditch JS, that's all.

I disagree, the abstractions don't go away somehow during compilation, for example classes get vtables, templates get multiple functions etc. Some functions may get inlined and so on.

But these features DO get reproduced by the compiler and still exist in some way in the assembly.

Sure, there are cases where the compiler inserts bugs that aren't really there in the source code, but that's rare and more importantly mostly an issue for C(++) due to the very weak definition of undefined behaviour and aggressive compiler optimizations. These are also very difficult to do deliberately.

There's a huge difference, it's a hassle for the developer, but more importantly it's dog slow and bigger than necessary(which costs bandwidth for both parties).

But that's pretty much the definition of abstractions going away. Vtables are no different than other pieces of memory in assembly. There is nothing there that says "This is a vtable", of course it is obvious but it could be a hardcoded table for all we know. Nothing says two different functions came from the same template, even if it's obvious from the name mangling.
You can make C code that outputs the same assembly as any other code from any other language, and C is less abstract than most of them, that pretty much proves that after compilation abstraction gets reduced.
Still, even if we disagree on details, my point is that webassembly makes no difference. You cannot do more evil with webasm than you can do already with js.

But that's wrong you fucking Ctard.