«WebAssembly CG members representing four browsers, Chrome, Edge, Firefox,
and WebKit, have reached consensus that the design of the initial (MVP [1])
WebAssembly API and binary format is complete to the extent that no further
design work is possible without implementation experience and significant
usage. This marks the end of the Browser Preview and signals that browsers
can begin shipping WebAssembly on-by-default. From this point forward,
future features will be designed to ensure backwards compatibility.»

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webassembly/2017Feb/0002.html

Cool.

On Tuesday, 28 February 2017 at 18:04:39 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> «WebAssembly CG members representing four browsers, Chrome, Edge, Firefox,
> and WebKit, have reached consensus that the design of the initial (MVP [1])
> WebAssembly API and binary format is complete to the extent that no further
> design work is possible without implementation experience and significant
> usage. This marks the end of the Browser Preview and signals that browsers
> can begin shipping WebAssembly on-by-default. From this point forward,
> future features will be designed to ensure backwards compatibility.»
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webassembly/2017Feb/0002.html
>
> Cool.

What a long, roundabout path we've taken to end up back where we started: shipping binaries in a sandboxed environment.

On Tuesday, 28 February 2017 at 21:50:11 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 February 2017 at 18:04:39 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> [...]
>
> What a long, roundabout path we've taken to end up back where we started: shipping binaries in a sandboxed environment.

What is the alternative you prefer: javascript and its myriad vulnerabilities?

On 02/28/2017 10:28 PM, Joakim wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 February 2017 at 21:50:11 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 28 February 2017 at 18:04:39 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> What a long, roundabout path we've taken to end up back where we
>> started: shipping binaries in a sandboxed environment.

My new favorite quote :)

>
> What is the alternative you prefer: javascript and its myriad
> vulnerabilities?

Probably shipping binaries in a sandboxed environment...but, you know, *without* the browser community badly reinventing the entire software stack.

On 02/28/2017 11:26 PM, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
> On 02/28/2017 10:28 PM, Joakim wrote:
>> What is the alternative you prefer: javascript and its myriad
>> vulnerabilities?
>
> Probably shipping binaries in a sandboxed environment...but, you know,
> *without* the browser community badly reinventing the entire software
> stack.

For that matter, wasn't one of the two key points to webapps in the first place the promise of thwarting vulnerabilities by using the browser as a sandbox? Oh! Why yes, it was!

I'm not so up-to-date about the mechanics of WebAssembly, but it would be pretty exciting to run D code in the browser.

Is this now possible or have I completely misunderstood what WebAssembly allows for?

On Tuesday, 28 February 2017 at 21:50:11 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
> What a long, roundabout path we've taken to end up back where we started: shipping binaries in a sandboxed environment.

Portable object-files is something that that people have tried to achieve since the 1980s, but vendors have always undermined it. If this goes through then it will be the first time we have a portable object files with backing of the major vendors. Even Microsoft.

The Java VM essentially ended up as a single vendor solution and didn't live up to it's hype in the browser.

On Wednesday, 1 March 2017 at 08:01:41 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:
> I'm not so up-to-date about the mechanics of WebAssembly, but it would be pretty exciting to run D code in the browser.
>
> Is this now possible or have I completely misunderstood what WebAssembly allows for?

It should be possible, at least if you give up on the garbage collector.

On 03/01/2017 03:47 AM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 March 2017 at 08:01:41 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:
>> I'm not so up-to-date about the mechanics of WebAssembly, but it would
>> be pretty exciting to run D code in the browser.
>>
>> Is this now possible or have I completely misunderstood what
>> WebAssembly allows for?
>
> It should be possible, at least if you give up on the garbage collector.
>

Huh? Isn't webasm GC'ed? Ir is it like a D-vs-wasm CG incompatibility?

On 03/01/2017 03:46 AM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 February 2017 at 21:50:11 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
>> What a long, roundabout path we've taken to end up back where we
>> started: shipping binaries in a sandboxed environment.
>
> Portable object-files is something that that people have tried to
> achieve since the 1980s, but vendors have always undermined it. If this
> goes through then it will be the first time we have a portable object
> files with backing of the major vendors. Even Microsoft.
>

If we could invent a technical way to screw over, underminine, and completely replace corporate interests, it would be the single greatest achievement in computing (not to mention economic theory), EVER.

Believe it it not, I'm still holding my breath for that, impossible though it may be. Call me a dreamer. Or a nutjob ;) Same thing, I suspect ;)