emscripten

Michael Stover michael.r.stover at gmail.com
Wed Dec 15 13:03:52 PST 2010


Ugh, the reading comprehension here is abysmal.  Ciao, I'm off to fuck up
your future and enjoy every moment of it.

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 3:54 PM, retard <re at tard.com.invalid> wrote:

> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20101215/4252c058/attachment.html>


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list