JavaScript is the "VM" to target for D

[retard]

Sat, 24 Apr 2010 13:53:10 -0600, Rainer Deyke wrote:

> On 4/24/2010 09:27, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>> If I had my way, I'd just be rid of the virtual machine altogether.
>> Simply run native programs as a restricted user. (Indeed, I'd run the
>> browser itself with that restricted user, then let it create whatever
>> processes it wants, possibly stripping the child processes of more
>> privileges.) The operating system keeps it from doing anything evil.
> 
> Congratulations, you just invented ActiveX.  I hope you like your
> platform lockdown and your security vulnerabilities.
> 
>> X-Accept-Code: linux64; linux; win32
> 
> 99% of web pages will offer just the win32 version.

Indeed, it's hard to believe that a "web 3.0" application vendor would 
suddenly support several platforms after 25+ years of Microsoft 
dominance. The second platform might increase the development costs 
10..50% and bring 4% more money. It doesn't make sense to support other 
platforms unless enforced by the law. This problem won't go away in the 
long run, on the contrary, as new (mobile/htpc/whatnot) platforms emerge.

A middleware is about building the infrastructure. Later (ideally) there 
are no platform specific costs involved. A history lesson might help 
Adam. Both Apple and Microsoft are afraid of middleware solutions. That's 
why Microsoft corrupted Java & Javascript and Apple recently banned all 
non-Apple middleware tools on iPhone. The web 2.0 apps were built because 
people got tired of Microsoft monoculture. Web 2.0 is a crappy 
technology, but we haven't got anything better.