New opportunities for D => ASM.js

[Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d]

On 5/16/2014 4:03 PM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad" 
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang at gmail.com>" wrote:
> On Friday, 16 May 2014 at 19:54:00 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> All of that is just as easily solvable without a web browser and
>> HTML/CSS/JS. The browser and HTML/etc are completely incidental to the
>> way those were solved.
>>
>> We could've had all that by now if so much effort hadn't been wasted
>> on HTML/etc.
>
> Yes, but today you have the option to build your own framework on top of
> WebGL. That basically just leaves the browser as a shell if you want to.
>

Meh, it leaves the browser as a resource-sucking, interface-damaging 
vestigial limb. Besides, the web's already enough of a leaning tower of 
abstractions as it is.

>> imaginable. HTML5 is a rancid burger with half a dog turd on it. Adobe
>> Flex/Flash/whatever is just simply a big bowl of diarrhea.
>
> Hehe. But you now have this thing called shadow DOM, so you can define
> your own HTML5 elements with behaviour. You will probably see UI kits
> for that within 1-2 years.
>

Hmm, taking a quick look at it, it doesn't appear to offer anything that 
can't already be done (albeit less hygienically). It appears to just 
function as a form of DOM namespaces.

Still a good thing for them to add, of course, just doesn't sound like 
it's really all that much of a "create your own elements" feature, at 
least any more than what's already possible. Rather, it's just a nice 
ability to help aid making/using HTML-based widgets. ('Course, this is 
based on only a few minutes of web searching on the topic, so I could be 
wrong about any of it.)

It does have the distinction though of being the web technology with by 
far the coolest name :)

 > (IE9 is holding back development).

Meh, IMO it's not IE9, it's MS's insistence on trying to kill XP without 
ever bothering to put out a real replacement (Vista and Win8 were 
basically just screwups, and Win7 is really just "MS OSX"). If MS hadn't 
refused to put newer IEs on XP (a clear attempt at forcing Windows 
upgrades), then we'd be rid of older IEs much quicker.

But no, the newer Windows have gotten so shitty, and so steadfast on 
forcing their latest UI-of-the-week "improvements" on anyone who doesn't 
want it, that in order to sell Windows upgrades MS has to resort to 
things like refusing IE updates. (They can't even manage to compete with 
a nearly 15-year-old OS without going so far as yanking security support 
and browser updates. That's how bad they've gotten at "improving" and 
upgrading Windows.) Ehh, but now I've managed to sidetrack myself on yet 
another tangential rant...