News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:WebAssembly’s post-MVP future by ConanRus on Monday October 22, 2018 @05:00PM (#18278455)
This is all right and all, but I have one question: why the hell it needs to be inside of a browser? To do what exactly? I don't care about browsers, I care about applications. I don't want freaking Photoshop in my browser, because I want a browser to die. This should be a part of the OS, not a freaking browser. Give me a built-in runtime with sandboxing, a delivery method, and an AppStore. Give me next generation Java/Flash. I tired of a browser as an OS replacement. It is not and it shouldn't be.
Re:WebAssembly’s post-MVP future by msla on Monday October 22, 2018 @10:24PM (#18280292)
Because it effectively solves the distribution problem in a way which includes non-technical people.

If you think your solution does that, meditate on what "non-technical" means.

Re:WebAssembly’s post-MVP future by user111233 on Monday October 22, 2018 @10:45PM (#18280367)
Having the URL system also makes them so much better for sharing. Imagine being able to share a link that someone could click and it would open up your shared image inside of photoshop.
Re:WebAssembly’s post-MVP future by pjmlp on Tuesday October 23, 2018 @03:04AM (#18281327)
Android, iOS and UWP do that with deep links.
Re:WebAssembly’s post-MVP future by krapp on Tuesday October 23, 2018 @07:37PM (#18288444)
It doesn't need to be inside of a browser[0], that's just going to be the most common client.

[0]https://webassembly.org/docs/non-web/

Re:WebAssembly’s post-MVP future by justinclift on Monday October 22, 2018 @10:03PM (#18280213)
Re:WebAssembly’s post-MVP future by corey_moncure on Monday October 22, 2018 @09:35PM (#18280122)
Dude, like, just get with the program, man.
Re:WebAssembly’s post-MVP future by moosingin3space on Tuesday October 23, 2018 @03:03AM (#18281326)
Why is it such a bad thing for a browser to act as an OS?