|
|
|
|
|
|
by laughinghan
5003 days ago
|
|
|
As it should be, until the implementation settles and it's clear what interfaces should be standardized. I believe Brendan Eich is suggesting that the preferred process is for a technology to be defined by a draft of a spec, and have multiple implementations' interfaces settle down before being standardized, rather than having one definitive implementation that unilaterally determines what is settled down and what isn't. That seems quite reasonable to me, when such a thing is possible doesn't it sound like it would lead to a better spec for a better technology? It's disappointing to continuously see this anti-NaCl propaganda from Mozilla. Could you elaborate on all the anti-NaCl propaganda you're continuously seeing? Is it actually Mozilla's propaganda, or Brendan Eich's personal opinion? Personally, I thought that at least in these slides, he was quite balanced in presenting both the pros and the cons of a technology directly aimed at taking the spotlight from his baby (by being used instead of JS for high-performance browser games and stuff). |
|
|
As in, Mozilla would implement a common core of NaCL features, perhaps omitting some of the less-core ones that Chrome has, and adding their own extensions, and they could see what was good and what was bad, and experimental features could gradually become part of the standard? Sure, sounds good.
But for google to try and define a standard when they only have the only one immature implementation would just be stupid.