emscripten

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ieb2ng$2u34$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> that's *proof* of how horrid JS is
>
> I often feel Google is re-discovering DOS' capabilities and going on about 
> how
> great it is. Got it in graphics and input, and files too.
>

Yea, I feel like I'm one of the few people in the software world that was 
actually into software throughout the whole 90's, and actually used things 
like the Apple II (Apple's only good product line ever, IMNSHO). Things go 
in circles, and it's so frustrating to see things veer off into a brink wall 
while people like us are left screaming "WTF are you thinking?!" to a deaf 
audience, only to *eventually* see some of those same drunkards finally 
begin to get a tiny glint of clarity, at which point we're just shaking our 
heads going "See, I fucking *told* you so", which, again is ignored by the 
idiots who think they've invented exactly what we've been fruitlessly 
preaching all along.

> HTML5 local storage is a bunch of key/item pairs. Wooo, it's like a 
> filesystem
> with only a root directory!
>

I don't know how I feel about that: I'd hate to see HTML5 end up repeating 
Flash's SuperCookies.

>> I'm sure as hell not going to be one of
>> those "This site best viewed with X browser" assholes.
>
> I might be one of those people, though I don't come out and say it, my 
> sites do
> tend to be best viewed with X browser.
>
> But the important difference is it still *works* in Y and Z browser. It 
> just won't
> have rounded corners, etc.

Well, yea, that's just cosmetic irrelevancies. But if something's built for 
chrome, and then runs on other browsers like a GameBoy-powered 
streaming-HD-video server, and breaks entirely with JS off (there's a lot of 
good reasons to have JS off), then that's rather a different story.