
Mozilla mimics Google's NaCl demo in pure JavaScript - mbrubeck
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/25/mozilla_on_jaegermonkey_javascript_engine_extension/
======
fierarul
I don't see the point in this. NaCl isn't about showing how slow JS is, it's
about allowing people run code written in C/C++ with a recompile plus some
glue code.

Totally different matters. People forget how much C/C++ code there is out
there. Nobody is going to rewrite it into JS.

------
ck2
That Chris Blizzard fellow has some interesting articles here:
<http://hacks.mozilla.org/author/blizzard/> and blog here:
<http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/category/performance/>

I'm glad (some) browser developers are still focusing on javascript vs native
speed.

I just upgraded from a 2ghz to a 4ghz PC and damn if this isn't going to ruin
my attitude about trying to make web sites faster.

The problem is NOTHING is slow on this hardware and it was less than a $150
upgrade. (It also uses less power than the 2ghz hardware!)

I'm going to have to figure out how to cut the speed in half for testing. Wish
we still had "turbo" buttons!

------
puredemo
The comparison between this and NaCl is quite a stretch. NaCl has much further
ranging implications -- being able to code in any language and having it
display in the broswer is a true paradigm shift.

------
vrode
If we're going to evolve web, do we really want javascript to be the standard?

~~~
loup-vaillant
JavaScript is the only possible standard. Here's why:

Apparently, the world need a Turing complete Web, so it can be used for things
totally out of its original scope (publishing).

Technically, it makes little sense. It often wastes bandwidth, CPU, and
efficiency of interaction. (Gmail is cool, but a native version of it could be
better in all three ways.)

But, because people are idiots who don't know how to install a program on
their machine, we need to give them a way to use such programs without even
having to point or grunt before they get started. (Well, it's not a need,
actually. That's a _choice_. Idiots can be educated. And they will be,
eventually.)

To this day, the only Turing complete thing that is installed by default on
every computer on this planet (meaning Windows PC and Macs) is JavaScript.
Unless we displace it, and until "average users" educate themselves, I think
we're stuck with JavaScript.

~~~
detst
I guess I'm an idiot user for preferring Gmail to anything else I've used
while getting the additional benefit of having that exact same interface on
any computer I use without having to install anything.

~~~
loup-vaillant
I should have use scare quotes. I didn't want to say that users are idiots.
They are ignorants, or just don't want to bother. What I _did_ want to say is
that most developers do take users for idiots. Software that doesn't need a
manual and takes 5 minutes to assess is made for idiots. A nice side effect is
that it works very well for everyone else.

Now, using Gmail won't make you an idiot by itself. But it may be an idiocy,
depending on whether you know what you are doing or not. By default, I
strongly suspect that you don't. Here's why:

First, there's the obvious privacy issue. Much of your private correspondence
is stored on Google's servers. Google makes semantic analysis on your e-mail,
so it can send you ads. They could do many interesting things with your e-mail
if they want to. They are an interesting target for internet based attacks.
They could make mistakes that affect all users. Do you really trust them that
much?

Second, there's network issues. Web based mail is hurting the network in two
ways.

The first is that their ubiquity lead people to believe that to send e-mail,
you only need the 80(http) and 443(https) ports. Thanks to that almost nobody
noticed, or cared, when ISP began to block the outgoing 25(smtp) port. They
pretended it was to prevent their customers to send spam. Because they took
them for idiots whose Windows computers are full of botnets. They may be
right, but the real effect is that their customers can no longer send e-mail
by themselves, and have to rely on third parties instead. That makes web-based
mail much more attractive. The loop is closed.

The second network issue is the way data flows: from Gmail to your ISP's
network, and not the reverse. The effect is even more pronounced with sites
like YouTube. This asymmetry, which you could have avoided if you ran your own
mail server and hosted your videos yourself[1], makes hard for your ISP to get
good peering agreements. And now, they invoke this asymmetry to argue that
"content providers" should pay to send their data.

[1] Oh, you can't. I forgot the "A" in "ADSL". Sorry.

Anecdotally, don't you find silly that all your e-mail goes through the
silicon valley before it reaches your neighbour? That's not very efficient.

As far as I know, JavaScript only serves 2 purposes: eye candy, and doing
remotely what could have been done locally (meaning using web apps). Both
purposes are dangerous idiocies (without quotes, this time). Using a Turing
complete thing to do eye candy is idiot because of the needless potential
security breaches. And using web apps is idiot because you lose control and
help creating an unnecessary centre. (Note however that _doing_ web apps is
not idiot at all. See Facebook.)

The current trend of webifying and centralizing everything terrifies me. If we
don't pay attention, they will shut the internet down. No server at home, only
clients (preferably webkit based ones). And what could have been the voice of
the people will go back to the propaganda of the powerful.

I don't want that.

------
chanux
Clicked to see what a Sodium Chloride demo looks like.

