emscripten

retard re at tard.com.invalid
Wed Dec 15 12:54:54 PST 2010


First, I have to ask, wtf are you using to post these. I can't even reply 
to you. The text area is empty, when I press 'reply'. It breaks pan, a 
standards-compliant nntp client.

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:45:23 -0500, Michael Stover wrote:

> 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.

I can assure you, the automatic updates work nicely in Linux land (use a 
stable distro) and also many Windows programs now handle it nicely. And 
often I don't even need them. As a sw developer I do want to hack with my 
programs. I want to own my software to avoid VLI. I want to own it to make 
sure it contains no backdoors or ad/spyware features.

>>   => 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?

I think at some point the software becomes good enough. There has to be a 
balance between the number of features and stability and all. Human mind 
can't handle arbitrary complexity. At that point the feature development 
should stop. At that point the price should approach zero. I don't want 
to pay just to get nothing in return. In become way too familiar with 
this in the Windows Exchange/AD/Office/Windows leash land.

For example email and instant messaging. I have probably 50..100 
different email clients and IM clients in the distro's repositories. And 
you're saying that I should suddenly start paying or watching ads to use 
that functionality I've taken for granted since I was born. Seriously 
what the fuck.

> 
>   - 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.

Oh really? Where are the sources?

>>   - this is especially bad ethically if you're writing free software
>>
>>
> There is no change here.

What? The time you spend on non-free software reduces the time you spent 
improving free software.

>>  - 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.

They use the wrong operating system and in general are idiots. Ever heard 
of Facebook privacy issues? http://img220.imageshack.us/
img220/4271/129228102781.jpg just to name one. They get fixed, but before 
the fix is applied, some real world people get harmed.

Another downside of web apps is that less developer time is spent on 
local applications. This is bad news for us old skool folks.


>>  - 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

Why the F would I want to use this inferior platform? Write me a Blender 
in Javascript. The only reason I'd choose it is when it's a better tool 
for the task.

>>  - 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 meant now. Stop talking about the potential. It's not here yet. 

>>  - 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.

If you travel a lot or don't live in an urban environment, you see that 
connectivity sucks in many places. And on top of that the charges per 
megabyte are enormous abroad. At home, at least my ISP fails to keep the 
DHCP/DNS servers and routers up several times each year. If I only had 
web apps, I'd be screwed. I would need to buy two independent network 
connections, preferably both wireless and wired.

>> 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?

Thanks to advocates like you, we're totally fucked up.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list