|
Quote: The team notes that the idea here is not to replace JavaScript...
I wish people would finally try that...
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, this does enable just that. Wasm allows binaries to be delivered to the browser, roughly corresponding to the features in asm.js. As that is lower-level than JS, it is a declared intent that other languages can generate wasm modules.
Finally (at least in a year or so), it may be possible to write web code in another language without pre-compiling to JS. A vote for sanity.
Its very encouraging all major vendors are supporting it (with the notable exception (again) of crApple), otherwise it would be dead in the water.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, but from my understanding of the article, a JavaScript engine is still required for execution. The only difference is that the input is now a serialized AST (that can originate from another language than JavaScript, of course) instead of a text file that needs to be parsed. It helps performance, but it is not as native as it could be. It's just like Java or .NET, it still needs a execution engine to bring it to the metal.
|
|
|
|
|
In its latest corporate shakeup, Microsoft has moved its first-party hardware business into its Windows engineering organization. But why? To get to the other side?
|
|
|
|
|
Let's Encrypt will start issuing a few free digital certificates next month while it ensures the system is reliable. Mental note: sell Verisign stock
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing me this kind of information.
|
|
|
|
|
Starting now, qualified startup companies can claim $120,000 in Azure credit every year in the Bizspark Plus program to help businesses to excel in their field. "Come get some"
|
|
|
|
|
The ruling is likely to be influential on EU courts' thinking in future. Good thing there aren't any Europeans here that might cause trouble
|
|
|
|
|
Presuming the EU Court mental mediocrity isn't internationally contagious, just another reason I'm glad there's an ocean between us.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Amen
Contrary to popular belief, nobody owes you anything.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but we're putting them on a raft and pointing them your way. We don't want them.
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: just another reason I'm glad there's an ocean between us.
Don't worry, we Europeans are as happy as you are about that! 
|
|
|
|
|
We had a sea, they built a tunnel.
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: just another reason I'm glad there's an ocean between us.
It's too late; the rot is already present North of the border, and on most (all?) U.S. college campuses. 
GAGGING US SOFTLY[^]
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
I concur, we manage to avoid nutters running around shooting people quite effectively over here.
(Or at least its incredibly rare).
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
This will be knocked over on appeal or subsequent challenge. Laws need to based on common sense, and in this we are clearly lacking.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Uncommon sense is more accurate these days.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
You are making the unwarranted assumption that common sense is common.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Even if you're willing to look past the utter contempt for free speech one is still left with the obvious question: "How about holding trolls responsible for their own conduct?" Oh, that's right, most trolls don't have near the cash reserves that a successful web business may have.
To make sense of this you only need to consider other ridiculous rulings (anti-trust against Microsoft/Google/Apple). This ruling sets up successful websites for vicious and expensive lawsuits - that way, the EU doesn't have to build anything or do any of the hard work, but rather, fat white men can sit back and award their governments hundreds of millions of dollars for doing absolutely nothing other than 'being appalled'.
1: The courts have excused the government from enforcement.
2: The courts have excused the government from innovation/investment.
3: The courts have made the government's only task to collect fines from the successful.
Die in a fire.
|
|
|
|
|
You deserve another upvote for that - even though you were rather merciful with respect to the manner of death.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Actually this is not a simple black and white issue.
My belief in free speech is being speedily shattered by some of misogynist, racist and downright sick hate speech frequently occurring on forums, generally on those of major sites (YouTube comments frequently illustrate the point well). Including death threats.
If a site allows users to create anonymous accounts, they are effectively sheltering them from being held responsible for their statements, even when those statements are illegal. If the web site fails to remove these statements, then who exactly is responsible?
(That is the exact situation in this case - the site refused to take down hate speech which was illegal under European law).
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: If a site allows users to create anonymous accounts, they are effectively sheltering them from being held responsible for their statements, even when those statements are illegal. If the web site fails to remove these statements, then who exactly is responsible?
There is so much wrong with this it is difficult to know where to begin.
1: You cite 'sheltering them from being held responsible' - this assumes that people should be held responsible for trolling a website. I don't acknowledge your presupposition that the government has any grounds WHATSOVER to interfere with free speech.
2: Illegal statement? This situation highlights not the troll problem but rather the very serious problem that a statement could be illegal. The idea that a statement could be illegal should scare all of us.
3: Who should be held accountable? I dunno, let's start with the public school system. They've 12 years to brain wash a kid and somehow that kid gets through the system and still think Jews are a menace? I say FINE the public schools - oh wait, that isn't robbing the right people (from the perspective of the government). I think the case can be made that the SCHOOLS should be fined, teachers jailed - they've clearly failed.
If you believe fining websites makes any sense I'll come over to your house and say illegal things in your yard. When you fail to stop me I'll have you arrested and all of your money confiscated.
|
|
|
|
|
You don't, for example, feel that death threats should be illegal?
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: You don't, for example, feel that death threats should be illegal?
Why would a death threat be illegal?
I agree it would be better if people didn't say/write those things but I'd like to see the government properly handle a case where someone actually did the crime - maybe once those are handled in a fair, efficient manner we can move onto potential crime.
But even worse, if the EU levies a fine for a death threat does the money go to help protect the threatened party or does it end up in a slush fund for hookers & blow for the oligarchs that are currently in the process of destroying Western Civilization?
Removing the death threat from the website doesn't make the target safer.
It will make a bunch of bloated bureaucrats more powerful though - which is the real point.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: Why would a death threat be illegal?
If you cannot see that, I really don't see any point in debating with you.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
