April 24, 2010
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 04:29:17PM -0600, Rainer Deyke wrote:
> Running the browser as a restricted user is good (and indeed necessary), but when you're running native code, you're only as secure your OS and CPU allow.  Running on a VM provides an additional layer of insulation.

Sure, that's reasonable. I'll point out that if the VM is compromised, you're
back to depending on the OS, but you'll be right to counter that it is
one more hurdle for the bad guys.
April 24, 2010
Justin Johansson wrote:

> KennyTM~ wrote:
>> On Apr 22, 10 14:52, Lutger wrote:
>>> I don't think javascript is suited for this purpose, but perhaps
>>> silverlight
>>> / moonlight is. A D compiler targetting the CoreCLR could be big,
>>> depending
>>> on how this platform takes off.
>> 
>> D.NET?
> 
> D.NET (D.CLR), D.JVM, D.ECMAScript, anything except D.assembler would
> have a lot of market appeal.  I would hesitate at D.LLVM though as
> that's not where the "money" is, sadly (imho).

llvm has vmkit though, which can target both .net and java runtimes, I have no idea how mature that is. It could be a route to silverlight, meaning webapps in D. SafeD might be important here for interop.

http://vmkit.llvm.org/
April 24, 2010
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.76.1272148468.3522.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 06:17:25PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "it forces you to use their tool chain the whole way"
>
> Check out the README:
>
> http://nativeclient.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/src/native_client/README.html
>
> Notice how the instructions don't say to use gcc and gdb, but instead nacl-gcc and nacl-gdb. The downloads say "source and toolchain".
>
> Wikipedia says that it is simply because the code have 32 byte alignment:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Native_Client
>
> (second paragraph) but nevertheless, an out of the box compiler isn't
> going
> to work for it.
>

It looks like that's something that's necessary for the sandboxing and shouldn't be difficult for compilers to provide their own options for. Maybe Walter could add options to DMC to do that (or someone could do it to DMD or LDC) and we could see if that would be enough to get things to work on NaCL. I suspect the only reason they didn't just simply submit a patch to GCC may have just been because of GCC's (IMHO) slow and nearly impenetrable submission/acceptance process (There was a modification I once made to GCC and thought about submitting a patch, but after hours of digging through their site I couldn't figure out the process. The one thing I did learn about it is that there are periods during which patches aren't accepted).

>
> Then, once the code is written, you can't execute it without the Google browser plugin,

Any sort of natively-compiled-web-client technology is going to need either a plugin or explicit browser support.

> integrated with Chrome and offered for Firefox, but not
> available for Internet Explorer. Maybe they'll offer one once it goes
> live,
> but I wouldn't count on it.

Isn't it open-source? I'd imagine someone could just port it to IE.

>Even so, odds are good that users won't have
> it installed anyway.

Well, that would be an issue anyway with anything along the lines of what we've been talking about. Either getting a plugin installed in people's browsers, or getting it built into browsers and then getting people to upgrade to that new browser version.


May 02, 2010
Am 21.04.2010 03:18, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
> I use Haxe for any and all PHP and Flash development and I will *never* go
> back to direct PHP or ActionScript. Never, ever, ever, ever, EVER!

[snip]
> D, or at least something closer to D, would be FAR better than Haxe, though.
> In fact even though I just raved about Haxe, I actually hate Haxe. Yes, it's
> vastly superior to using direct PHP/AS, so much so that IMO there's no good
> reason ever to use PHP/AS directly. But Haxe is still crap anyway. Just off
> the top of my head, and I know I'm forgetting a lot:
>
[snip]

> However, I'm not convinced that compiling a full real language down to
> browser-client-JavaScript is a great idea...
>
[snip]

aha - ok where is the logic ?

haXe is better than nothing - nothing is better than D => ....

never seen any post from you on the haXe newsgroup.

cheers, Adrian.
May 03, 2010
"Adrian" <nospam@veith-system.de> wrote in message news:hrkgek$2ijb$1@digitalmars.com...
> Am 21.04.2010 03:18, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
>> I use Haxe for any and all PHP and Flash development and I will *never*
>> go
>> back to direct PHP or ActionScript. Never, ever, ever, ever, EVER!
>
> [snip]
>> D, or at least something closer to D, would be FAR better than Haxe,
>> though.
>> In fact even though I just raved about Haxe, I actually hate Haxe. Yes,
>> it's
>> vastly superior to using direct PHP/AS, so much so that IMO there's no
>> good
>> reason ever to use PHP/AS directly. But Haxe is still crap anyway. Just
>> off
>> the top of my head, and I know I'm forgetting a lot:
>>
> [snip]
>
>> However, I'm not convinced that compiling a full real language down to browser-client-JavaScript is a great idea...
>>
> [snip]
>
> aha - ok where is the logic ?
>
> haXe is better than nothing - nothing is better than D => ....
>

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here.

> never seen any post from you on the haXe newsgroup.
>

I've posted a number of times on the haxe message board.

http://haxe.org/forum/search?search=Abscissa



Next ›   Last »
1 2 3 4 5
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home