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.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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.
Android, iOS and UWP do that with deep links.
It doesn't need to be inside of a browser[0], that's just going to be the most common client.
Re:WebAssembly’s post-MVP future
by justinclift on Monday October 22, 2018 @10:03PM
(#18280213)
Something like these?
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?