Reply to post: Webassembly and other junk

'Supporting Internet Explorer is hell': Web developers identify top needs – new survey

Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

Webassembly and other junk

Webassembly? I don't care; this is simply to allow something like llvm to produce runnable code, it otherwise is treated as Javascript in terms of security and what it can actually do to the computer. It makes debugging the code (probably) terrible but doesn't really affect anything else.

Access to native hardware? Sounds terrible, it already has access to my screen, keyboard, mouse, speakers, and (potentially) speaker and mic, and as far as I can tell access to read or write in my home directory. It DOES NOT need more access!!

Access to native APIs! HELL NO!!! Then you'll end up with abominations like Microsoft was encouraging about 20 years ago (with early .NET), so-called portable applications that are actually totally platform-specific due to use of platform-specific APIs. Also horrible for security; the Javascript runtime could be as secure as you want, but with access to native APIs this can let a bad actor punch right through whatever security the Javascript runtime has set up.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020