Re: The Revenge of the Geeks

From: Arne Vajh°j <arne_at_vajhoej.dk>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:14:36 -0500
Message-ID: <51049ba3$0$293$14726298_at_news.sunsite.dk>



On 1/26/2013 6:04 PM, BGB wrote:
> On 1/26/2013 3:34 PM, Arne Vajh°j wrote:
>> On 1/26/2013 2:22 PM, BGB wrote:
>>> dunno about an app working in a browser, I haven't personally really
>>> looked much into this. the one thing I had noted which I felt might make
>>> this worthwhile was "Google Native Client", but given it is Chrome-only
>>> at this point, this is a drawback (better if Firefox supported it, but
>>> the FF people apparently oppose it).
>>>
>>> Adobe Flash sometimes seemed like a possible option, but isn't
>>> particularly compelling, and the development environment apparently
>>> costs money.
>>
>> Java applet, Flash, SilverLight, Google Native, JavaScript - there
>> are plenty of options.
>
> yep, not saying that there aren't a lot of options here.
>
>
> the main advantage of Native Client would be that it would be easier for
> me to target it, mostly because it wouldn't require largely rewriting a
> bunch of stuff (all the C parts of the project could be kept intact, and
> compiled fairly directly, ...).

Sure about that?

I would expect Native Client to block a lot of code for security reasons.

> a further limitation in the JS case though is that, given code is sent
> and recompiled from text form, this puts effective size limits on it
> (trying to give it a giant mass of trans-compiled code probably wont
> work very well, and some other areas of JS give a lot of room for doubt).

It si common today to develop JS source code with comments, long names, indentation etc. and then strip it before deploying to reduce size.

Arne Received on Sun Jan 27 2013 - 04:14:36 CET

Original text of this message