emscripten

[Michael Stover]

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 2:26 PM, retard <re at tard.com.invalid> wrote:

> Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:40:50 -0600, Andrew Wiley wrote:
>
> > The point was that while Javascript is slow, it's getting fast enough
> > to be useful. Yes, it's not C. It will never be. But the fact that any
> > sort of realtime calculations are possible in it is a breakthrough that
> > will be reflected in actual application code. Javascript was not
> > designed to be fast, and honestly, it doesn't need to be fast to fill
> > it's niche.
>
> I'm not getting this. WHY we should use Javascript/HTML5 applications
> instead. I'm perfectly happy with my existing tools. They work nicely. It
> takes years to develop these applications on top of HTML5. I simply have
> no motivation to use web applications. They have several downsides:
>
>  - you "rent" the app, you don't "own" it anymore
>

Many would find that a benefit, as updates are automatic, never need to
install new versions.


>   => which leads to: advertisements, monthly fees
>

Again, benefits galore for some folks.  Should I pay $80 to buy the software
and find out if I like it, and another $40 two years later to upgrade, or
pay $4/month and quit whenever I'm done with it?

  - this is especially bad if you're already using free as in beer/
> speech software
>

gmail is free as in beer and nothing prevents it being open source.


>   - this is especially bad ethically if you're writing free software
>

There is no change here.

>
>  - worse privacy (do I want some Mark SuckerBerg to spy on my personal
> life for personal gain)
>

Same issues with applications you install on your computer.  Perhaps they
are worse in that case, since so many people have so many problems with
malware, spyware, worms and viruses.


>
>  - worse security (a networkless local box IS quite safe, if CIA is
> raiding your house every week, you're probably doing something wrong,
> otherwise, buy better locks)
>

Javascript+browser can be a purely client-machine application too just like
D or Java or C

>
>  - worse performance (at least now and in the next few years)
>

Yes.  But if you take frame rates in games, which is a terrible example for
javascript, the more general truth is that beyond a certain point,
performance differences are undetectable to the human eye.  At which point,
the only thing driving your technology choice is developer productivity.
 Even before that point of undetectability, most people will choose the app
that provides more features over the one that performs somewhat better.  And
for good reason.  Something being a little slow vs not being able to do it
at all is an easy choice for most people.  People on this mailing list are
somewhat eccentric in their demands, which is entirely their right, but
y'all should at least recognize web apps are and will be successful by and
large.

>
>  - worse usability
>

Completely disagree.  Desktop apps right now have an enormous advantage in
how much development-hours have gone into them over web app counterparts.
 This will change, quickly.


>
>  - worse reliability (network problems, server problems)
>

In theory, yes, and once in a while it is a problem, but I honestly can't
remember the last time I had any issues with connectivity.


>
> I know the good sides. No need to mention them. In my opinion the
> downsides are still more important when making the decision.
>

Honestly, where do think things will stand 5-10 years from now?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20101215/2a9cacbd/attachment.html>