sent from a disposable whonix qube

  • Kangae_Hishiryo@scribe.disroot.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Wasm seems like a good step towards a better web, and still is something really niche AFAIK.

    I hope that it becomes standard, because is way more secure, and of course more performant than JS.

    I do even think that the HTML+CSS+JS triad (and its single components, too) are a historical bad design decision, a HUGE one, and should’ve superseded.

    • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      What makes WASM more secure than JavaScript? I’d think that the main issue with JS is that it’s a programming language that’s running on the client-side, not that it’s specifically JS.

      • Kangae_Hishiryo@scribe.disroot.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        The fact that WASM is NOT a programmimg language, and that WASM is intrinsically sandboxed and has really granular permissions (through WASI).

        Also, how do you expect that, for example, a videoconference site (let’s say, Jitsi Meet) will work if you don’t execute any client-side code? And I’m not saying that all client-side code is permisible, justified or good, but rather that not all the client-side code is unpermisible, unjustified or bad, as you seem to imply.

        And if you do use FLOSS, that’s really paranoid, even if FLOSS isn’t perfect.