emscripten

Nick Sabalausky a at a.a
Wed Dec 15 12:36:49 PST 2010


"Michael Stover" <michael.r.stover at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.1037.1292442333.21107.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> 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.
>

It's not uncommon for newer versions to be worse. Look at Acrobat Reader, 
iTunes, and Nero. A lot of people don't want to be forced into updates that 
make things worse. My Mom uses Hotmail and has a fit every time they decide 
to change everything around (which seems to be quite a lot). She'd be far 
happier with something that didn't work that way, but she sticks with it 
because she's every bit as much of a group-think lemming as everyone else.


>
>>   => 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?
>

Or get freeware/FLOSS and pay nothing and have no ads. And there's 
ad-supported desktop software too, so with desktop software you can go 
either way. Web apps can't go either way, because there's always the 
possibility the owner will pull the plug, and even if they don't, the ownser 
will still have server expenses which will have to get paid somehow.

>>
>>  - 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.
>

With my own computer, there are things I can do to prevent that. With 
webapps I'm 100% reliant on someone else: there isn't a damn thing I can do.

>>
>>  - 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
>

Yes, but what would be the point? It would be all downsides and no upsides. 
If you're going to have a local app it may as well be 
D/Java/C/Python/whatever.

>>
>>  - 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.

Which the vast majority of JS web apps are nowhere remotely near.

> At which point,
> the only thing driving your technology choice is developer productivity.

Which once again is a big vote *against* web-browser-as-a-platform.

>>
>>  - 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.
>

I've been hearing that for a long time. Still waiting. In the meantime, the 
only changes I've seen have been for the worse.

>>
>> 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?
>

I shudder to even think...Nowhere good considering the directions things are 
moving.





More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list