@Shamar about #WebAssembly being "worse" than JavaScript from the user point of view I suggest you to take a look at the following video, minute 20:30, because the speaker explains that WebAssembly can be used "outside of the browser" and I'd say this is a chance to reuse Web developers experience, libraries, frameworks and tools and lead them to a paradigm that isn't the actual client-server one where you need to trust a server you don't control.

youtu.be/QyMXTuFCc4w

@Shamar

Yes a done well Java from portability point of view and a done well Electron in terms of reusing Web tech for UI.

Making convenient to install applications reusing Web tech could let us check that an app that is supposed to use e2e encryption does so and we don't need to trust the server.

Like "do you want to be sure e2eE is effective? Download the same Web UI as versioned audited open source app and run it locally."

@alexl

My FP protocol is designed to make it indifferent to run an application on local hardware or to distribute its execution among remote machines.

That's why the licensing issue is so important: the user has the right to know what is running on the remote end.

But frankly, I don't think this "Java done right with Electron" is going to work in practice as a portability layer.

It will be portable to... Chrome.

And won't be better for security because it will be overcomplicated.

ยท 1 ยท 2 ยท 1

@Shamar

Sorry, I don't know to what are you referring with "my FP protocol" :)

Not only Chrome supports WebAssembly, Firefox is a major proponent and the speaker in the video is from Mozilla. If I understand that explaination correctly WebAssembly is not intended to be run only by Web browsers

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

Server run by the main developers of the project ๐Ÿ˜ It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!