News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on LLJS: Low-Level JavaScript. Parent comment

Re:LLJS: Low-Level JavaScript by andreasvc on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @11:13AM (#4631941)
An important reason is security. The security of any web language is of vital importance, for obvious reasons. When you go low level or introduce umpteen different languages, maintaining the same level of security becomes increasingly challenging.

But I agree with you that JS is an unfortunate language to be stuck with (although many people appear to be content with it). I especially dislike that it's weakly typed.

Isn't Google's NativeClient something like what you're suggesting though?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:LLJS: Low-Level JavaScript by agentultra on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @12:29PM (#4632437)
I'm not suggesting anything, the paper I linked just described one such method for executed untrusted binary code through the browser.

At a cursory glance it looks like NativeClient is built on a sandbox and doesn't allow arbitrary binary applications to run natively on the OS. It doesn't allow system calls and looks like some sort of run-time manages memory on behalf of the application.

If you're at all interested, it cannot hurt to read the paper I linked to. It was written in 1997 and requires a little bit of historical forgiveness but the ideas are rather quite interesting.

[ Parent | on HN ]