D could catch this wave: web assembly

[Joakim via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 22 June 2015 at 16:34:58 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> People are already writing less javascript, but without a GC in 
> webasm most languages are better of compiling to javascript or 
> a mix.

The problem is that they may be writing less javascript now, but 
they're still stuck with the performance of javascript, as 
they're just compiling to javascript.  Webasm making that faster 
and allowing more languages should change that equation much more.

As for a GC, why would webasm need to provide one?  I'd think the 
languages would just be able to compile their own GC to webasm, 
which seems low-level enough.

>> That's what you do when you mash a bunch of disparate 
>> technologies together: make them mixable and flexible and let 
>> the devs deal with all the complexity and bugs. :)
>
> In a way, yes, but that how things grow when you have an 
> installed base. Evergreen browsers could in theory change it, 
> but we rely on Apple and Microsoft to update browsers for old 
> OSes to get there.

This is nonsense.  They're just dumping in everything they can 
think of, that has nothing to do with backwards-compatibility.

>> If speed of parsing and analyzing weren't one of the main 
>> issues, why are they even taking this webasm binary approach?  
>> A binary SVG can be made part of the DOM too once it's parsed.
>
> I think the vendors have realized that they need to take 
> babysteps in concert, because there is to much politics 
> involved to accept a "whole-sale solution" like PNACL etc.

PNaCl is bitcode too.

> IMO it basically means that they all want some kind of IR, but 
> don't agree on the specifics.

That doesn't answer the question of why they're using a bitcode 
and not a textual IR, as you prefer text for SVG.

>>> In the scripting API using text as values might be an issue, 
>>> but that's a different topic.
>>
>> Nothing that couldn't be made to work with the appropriate 
>> binary encoding.
>
> Not sure what that means. You need to have a different 
> type-system for values so that you can differentiate between 
> units (px, em, etc).

I thought you were saying that javascript would have trouble 
interacting with a binary SVG, which isn't necessarily the case, 
but maybe you meant something different.

On Monday, 22 June 2015 at 16:34:58 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On 06/22/2015 05:16 AM, Joakim wrote:
> > I really liked the new Fisher-Price style of desktop Windows
> 8,
>
> Ugh, now *that* one I don't like. Simplicity is nice, but ugly 
> is just ugly. It looks like a re-imagining of Win1 and Win2 
> drawn up by a hung-over unicorn ;)

Sounds good to me, :) I like the simplicity.

>> On Sunday, 21 June 2015 at 18:51:41 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> Not if you're just reinventing the form factor by propping up 
>>> your
>>> monitor^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htablet and pulling out a keyboard+mouse.
>>>
>>> It's just the particular lineage that (might) go away.
>>
>> Heh, you're really reaching now. :) Most people wouldn't call a
>> smartphone or tablet in a dock "reinventing the [desktop] form 
>> factor."
>>
>
> Of course they won't *call* it that, because they're easily 
> swayed by image and marketing. People refer to iPhone and such 
> as "phones" even though they're obviously much more of a pocket 
> computer (that happens to support cellular communications) than 
> a telephone.

No, it's because that's what the form-factor is and they can see 
it with their plain eyes, without having an axe to grind.

> Hmmm, you're still outright ignoring most of what I've said 
> about that. I'll repeat myself only one more time:
>
> "PARTLY because connecting keyboard/mouse is not something 
> people have normally done with smartphones (at least not 
> typically). And ALSO because the gap in processing power is 
> shrinking. And ALSO because you can now connect them to an 
> external monitor. And ALSO because they're gaining desktop UIs. 
> And ALSO misc other stuff."
>
> Stop picking ONE aspect of all that and pretending my argument 
> revolves purely around that one aspect alone.
---snip---
> *One* feature? No. At least one *MORE* feature.
>
> That's on top of everything they've already borrowed. You're 
> acting as if smartphones have ALWAYS had host-USB, HDMI-out, 
> processors that approach PC-level power, storage that 
> approaches low-end laptops, multi-processing, commonly getting 
> used with an external keyboard/mouse, etc. A lot of the 
> convergence has *already* been happening, and you never even 
> noticed ;) In fact that's WHY people are starting to notice 
> their potential for replacing traditional PCs.

The problem with mentioning aspects like employing a keyboard and 
monitor, or the speed and size of the chip or storage, 
multi-processing, various I/O ports, and so on is that most 
computers, of many different kinds, always had those.  So if 
you're going to mention those, what you're really saying is that 
there's no such thing as a desktop or laptop and since the first 
computers were mainframes, a desktop is really a smaller 
mainframe, a laptop is a more portable mainframe, and mobile 
devices are really just very small, very portable mainframes. :D

What _differentiates_ a desktop from other computers is the form 
factor, the software stack commonly used, certain hardware 
features that they're known for, like x86, and multi-window UIs.  
On all those counts but the last, mobile devices are completely 
different, so it's silly to say they're desktops or that they 
"converged" in any meaningful way other than the UI.

But if you have some emotional connection with the term "desktop" 
and can't take the fact that they're being rendered defunct, I 
can see why you'd want to ignore all that and just call the new 
devices "converged" or "desktops." :)

> I've done so already. It's absolutely terrible. At best, it's 
> an occasional replacement for those already-horrid 
> mini-touchscreen-keyboards (which almost anything is better 
> than).

I've been surprised on the few occasions I used google's voice 
translation about how good it was, but I haven't use it much.

>> You and Kagamin seem really bent out of shape by the desktop 
>> being
>> junked, for some personal reasons of your own, so I'll leave 
>> that "Is a
>> smartphone really a desktop once it adds a multi-window UI" 
>> argument
>> here.  I've made my viewpoint clear.
>
> No, we just don't like making points that only get conveniently 
> ignored or twisted around.

Or your position makes no sense and that's all I'm pointing out.

On Tuesday, 23 June 2015 at 09:44:19 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 June 2015 at 14:46:56 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> Sorry, I didn't read the conclusion of that link I gave you: I 
>> just linked it for the large graph showing and forecasting the 
>> number of global smartphone users.
>
> Well, people upgrade their phones and there were a lot of phone 
> users.

That chart shows current smartphone _users_, not total 
smartphones bought.

> Desktop has seen form factors and OSes die, it moved on.

I think what you mean is that "mainframes" have "seen form 
factors and OSes die, it moved on." :)