[BrendanEich]

Do we all buy two significantly different and expensive cars to "evaluate" both? Most people can't afford to do any such thing.

Nor do we all buy the same make and model of car. That's implementation monoculture.

Monoculture of implementation (WebKit, which I pointed out is fragmented in practice) is not the same as a single vocabulary for each kind of language at the primitive level of the web standards layer cake.

Yes, we are stuck with the web platform bottoming out at a certain set of languages. That's not monoculture, rather: termination without too much redundancy in something not so complex that multiple browsers can hope to implement interoperably. The platform has to stand on certain primitives.

Remember XHTML2 vs. HTML5 back in 2005? It was going to be one or the other, even if browsers such as Firefox parsed both (but XHTML2 slowly and without incremental layout).

Maybe a Microsoft or Google could have "done both" well (but IE didn't, except by treating text/xhtml as error-corrected HTML!).

Without a single dominant browser vendor with enough cash and willpower to pull off more than the minimum set of semantically sufficient/complementary primitive languages, we were likely stuck with HTML/CSS/JS. SVG and MathML as HTML5 polyglot languages eventually were rationalized into the stack but still see too little use to be optimized well (and didn't Chrome turn off MathML recently?).

So the primitives have to be minimized against competing browsers' ability to implement them all interoperably. Browsers weren't going to do equally well at both the 2005-era XML languages (XHTML/SVG/XSLT) and the competing incremental plan (HTML5).

Arbitrary native code has been falling out as a part of the primitive layer for a while. Plugins such as Flash and Silverlight are in decline. You could say we had a plugin polyculture, but it was a security nightmare and also bad for users just in terms of updates and cross-browser/plugin UX consistency.

Pepper is an attempt to mediate plugins' access to OS and browser APIs, but too tied to chromium and too large for Google to standardize or for other vendors to swallow.

Consider also how Dart support (2nd VM, in particular GC barriers required for cross-VM-heap cycle collection) bounced off WebKit:

https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2011-December/...

I'm mostly being descriptive so far, but let me prescribe:

Based on the hard multi-vendor specification and software engineering problems of doing well with a roughly minimized set of primitives that we have today, I do not believe it's "better" for anyone, especially for web developers, to over-extend the primitive set with things like NaCl and Pepper.

That applies even if one vendor could, e.g., add SIMD primitives quickly. That just fragments the picture for developers, and misdirects some energy that could be spent on adding SIMD to JS.

Same goes for Dart. It was so important to do as a "replacement" (see leaked Dash memo) and not wait for the standards bodies, but that started in 2010 (or earlier? I knew only for certain in spring 2010). It's 2013 now and Dart is not going cross browser. Things it wanted, e.g. bignums, could have been put in ES6 by now and implemented in leading JS engines.

I do not agree we are in a local optimum trap, not with Unreal 3 running within 2x of native unsafe code speed.

/be

[pifflesnort]

> Pepper is an attempt to mediate plugins' access to OS and browser APIs, but too tied to chromium and too large for Google to standardize or for other vendors to swallow.

You keep repeating this, but I don't see how you can be remotely serious about it.

Compared to JS, DOM, HTML, and CSS, Pepper is downright simple:

https://developers.google.com/native-client/peppercpp/inheri...

As an external developer, Pepper is something I could actually implement independently for a reasonable amount of money ($2M or less) in a reasonable amount of time (1 year or less), if I could rely on Google's existing (P)NaCL toolchain.

Would there be ambiguity? Yes. Google has already said they're willing to work with implementors to resolve any design or ambiguity issues.

On the other hand, I can't even imagine trying to write a full browser stack, including HTML(5), CSS, JS, et al, in one year for <= $2M? Not a chance.

Yet you call Pepper "too big" and "too complex". Meanwhile, the enormous weight of the mess that is the web stack creates a huge barrier to entry for anyone that might want to meaningfully contribute new ideas to the space.

We're already seeing interesting development occur around (the much more approachable) NaCL/Pepper:

http://zerovm.org/

> That just fragments the picture for developers, and misdirects some energy that could be spent on adding SIMD to JS.

This is rich coming from the CTO that's refused to collaborate with Google and instead is going off and "misdirecting" energy on alternative approaches.

> It's 2013 now and Dart is not going cross browser.

You know, you might have something to do with that? You're not exactly a powerless or disinterested third party in this dialog.

[tedmielczarek]

> As an external developer, Pepper is something I could actually implement independently for a reasonable amount of money ($2M or less) in a reasonable amount of time (1 year or less), if I could rely on Google's existing (P)NaCL toolchain.

But what's the point? You'd be stuck running some subset of "things that can run on the web", and the vast expanse of existing HTML content would be inaccessible. If you want to use NaCL/PNaCl for non-web applications nobody is stopping you. Writing a "browser" that doesn't implement HTML+JS is just nonsense.

> Would there be ambiguity? Yes. Google has already said they're willing to work with implementors to resolve any design or ambiguity issues.

We have no basis to know whether "attempt to specify all out the ambiguitity in the Pepper API, using the Chromium implementation as the standard" is harder than "implement the already-fairly-well-specified set of web technologies". We know web technologies can be implemented fairly interoperably, we have multiple interoperable implementations.

> You know, you might have something to do with that? You're not exactly a powerless or disinterested third party in this dialog.

And yet we're not the only game in town, either. None of the other browser manufacturers has expressed any interest, so it's not like we're alone on this. Why should we have to carry Google's banner? We've got enough stuff on our plate.

[pifflesnort]

> But what's the point? You'd be stuck running some subset of "things that can run on the web", and the vast expanse of existing HTML content would be inaccessible. If you want to use NaCL/PNaCl for non-web applications nobody is stopping you. Writing a "browser" that doesn't implement HTML+JS is just nonsense.

Unless you consider the possibility that:

- Web apps versus web documents are two very different things

- You see this as a way by which we could escape the mess and massive size of the current web stack by standardizing on a much smaller base.

- Simplifying the core stack could open the door to new competition and innovation in the field.

Personally, I'd love to see WebKit and/or Gecko and all the browser chrome implemented on top of NaCL and/or asm.js, with only the most minimal runtime, such that you're not sitting in a privileged position of running native code while the rest of us are stuck in JS/HTML/CSS hell.

> We know web technologies can be implemented fairly interoperably, we have multiple interoperable implementations.

We also know that it's ridiculously expensive and difficult, in no small part due to the resistance to enforcing things like formal validation of HTML in the browser itself, creating a problem that's as much art as it is science.

> And yet we're not the only game in town, either. None of the other browser manufacturers has expressed any interest, so it's not like we're alone on this. Why should we have to carry Google's banner? We've got enough stuff on our plate.

Apple and Microsoft have no interest in undercutting their own vertically integrated platforms.

Only you and Google have an strong interest in furthering the web, and yet, you refuse to work with Google despite them expending considerable time and money on furthering the web, while sharing their work freely.

[BrendanEich]

We at Mozilla don't have $2M and a year to spare, but you're wrong: we've assessed doing Pepper with high fidelity (not porting chromium and duplicating all the DOM and other browser API implementations). It's more like $10M and multiple elapsed years to get to Chrome parity, assuming Chrome doesn't keep evolving and put us on a treadmill.

But then, I'm just the guy managing engineering and worrying about budget at Mozilla. Maybe you have greater skills. Where do you work?

Anyway, Pepper is big, with over a thousand methods among all the interfaces that are "specified" only by C++ implementation code we cannot port. We have a DOM implementation already, for example. So you cannot escape the fact that Pepper is "and also", not "instead of" -- there's no savings, it is purely added-cost, and significant cost.

I'm almost the only guy who will say this on HN, but as far as I can tell, Microsoft and Apple are on the same page. Maciej Stachowiak of Apple has agreed on HN, for what it's worth:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4648045

Enough whining about Mozilla not doing Pepper. Let's get back to asm.js.

It looks like V8 will implement the optimizations for "use asm": http://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=2599.

Also, Epic is just the first big game publisher we are working with. Epic folks have confirmed again just this week that they won't do NaCl, there's no benefit to something CWS-only. But they are super-excited about cross-browser web-wide reach with asm.js and browser-hosted C++-sourced games. That's the PNaCl output format and runtime for Google to collaborate on.

/be

[pifflesnort]

> It's more like $10M and multiple elapsed years to get to Chrome parity, assuming Chrome doesn't keep evolving and put us on a treadmill.

So you don't believe Google's offers to work with external implementors?

> But then, I'm just the guy managing engineering and worrying about budget at Mozilla. Maybe you have greater skills. Where do you work?

I run a systems programming consulting shop. We focus on low-level OS/driver and VM projects, with application development making up the remainder of our work.

In theory, reliable estimates are my livelihood, and I have a very vested interest in the future of the platforms that we will have to develop for. I'm very concerned about the market requiring us to develop apps for a Mozilla platform.

> Microsoft and Apple are on the same page

What reason do they have to roll out something that helps Google undercut their vertical platform/app markets?

If NaCL is 'too good', then it threatens their business. Take that for what it means in terms of asm.js optimization adoption.

> Epic folks have confirmed again just this week that they won't do NaCl, there's no benefit to something CWS-only.

CWS-only and Chrome-only are again, oddly, something you have a hand in. Google pushed out beta PNaCL tools, and CWS-only has primarily been (rightfully) pending PNaCL.

[BrendanEich]

> So you don't believe Google's offers to work with external implementors?

I wasn't born yesterday.

Microsoft is patching WebKit to support Pointer Events. Strange days, but even this "help" does not mean Pointer Events should win (or lose -- it's neutral in standards terms, at most helpful to show implementation feasibility and quality, if possible).

Why do you distrust Apple and Microsoft and ascribe bad motives to them based on their commercial interests, but fault Mozilla for not jumping on Google's Pepper treadmill like a good little-brother caricature? Google has commercial interests too, and they have spent >$1B a year on Chrome -- including advertising and bundling that directly targets Firefox users. (It's amazing we are still alive, and possibly even growing desktop share.)

You are surely right that some amount of competitive pressure will be required to get asm.js optimized in all engines. Ditto for WebGL in IE, and enabled in Safari. But cooperation between Chrome and Firefox is already happening on both asm.js and WebGL, so between these "coopetition" pincers, I bet we'll prevail.

A hopeful sign regarding WebGL in IE11, assuming it is legit: http://fremycompany.com/BG/2013/Internet-Explorer-11-rsquo-s...

Anyway, let's assume everyone has equally good motives, since Google is not any less commercial than Microsoft or Apple these days. Pepper is still too costly for others to swallow even with offers of "help", and therefore losing -- it is not even in the race.

asm.js and evolved Web APIs (which developers need anyway) are winning.

Evil-me on my Throne of Skulls didn't ordain this outcome. It is unfolding before our eyes across browsers, developers, and very pragmatic third parties including big game/game-engine publishers.

(But I am laughing a Dr. Evil laugh, on my Skull island. :-P)

/be

[pifflesnort]

> Why do you distrust Apple and Microsoft and ascribe bad motives to them based on their commercial interests, but fault Mozilla for not jumping on Google's Pepper treadmill like a good little-brother caricature?

I don't distrust them, or ascribe bad motives. I ascribe motives that align with their economic interests -- it doesn't matter if they're bad or good.

> Google has commercial interests too, and they have spent >$1B a year on Chrome -- including advertising and bundling that directly targets Firefox users. (It's amazing we are still alive, and possibly even growing desktop share.)

How much does Google spend on Firefox's search deal? What do you see as Google's commercial motive with Chrome?

My reading (in the context that I have some family that works on Chrome) is that their primary interest was ensuring that they could help push the web forward, and not be beholden to external interests in doing so. They have an interest in open platforms insofar as it gives them leverage over the much more strongly established platform players (eg, Microsoft, Apple).

> asm.js and evolved Web APIs (which developers need anyway) are winning.

The interesting thing is that if asm.js has sufficient adoption, the 'web' part of the equation may very well not matter at all.

If Google maintains their efforts on (P)NaCL and can provide better performance, end implementors may target both asm.js and NaCL, with shims for platform-specific functionality (not unlike most game development today). Once you're doing that, you can also target other native platforms with the same code and tooling.

So I don't think asm.js is all bad. Ironically, it could very well be the escape route from JS/HTML/CSS/DOM that we've all been praying for ever since the idea of the web app came into being. Not because it's the best technical solution, but since when has technical correctness outweighed market forces?

> Evil-me on my Throne of Skulls didn't ordain this outcome.

Of course not. But "evil you" certainly has a hand in it. There are only 4 real players in the browser market, and you're one of them.

In fact, you're the one that decided to ignore what Google has been doing and invest in asm.js to begin with, so divesting any claim in the role of asm.js's possible ascendency is a bit of a stretch.

[BrendanEich]

My use of "bad" and "good" about your relative judgments of Microsoft, Apple, and Google could be "purple" and "shiny" for all it matters.

The point is you seem to treat Google as more benign and non-commercial. That's not credible based on many pieces of evidence, including their public company performance scrutiny by Wall Street. I admire Google for some things they do, and believe they do not over-optimize their share price, but they cannot ignore it, either. Also, they are a house divided, with many conflicting agendas not directly related to business goals.

> How much does Google spend on Firefox's search deal?

That's not something I can comment on, per our contract stipulated by Google, but the rumors are online and if you believe them, they show a commercial partnership, nothing more.

Numerate folks have estimated the value and cost of various search deals, see e.g. Jeremy Wagstaff of Reuters. I won't comment, except to say that Mozilla was underpaid for a long time, something we chose early on in order to avoid being greedy and triggering a bad reaction from search partners.

> What do you see as Google's commercial motive with Chrome?

Lots of motives, some mixed. It's complex, and the "make the web better" motive is still there and all to the good. Some shift away from standardization toward "works in Chrome/CWS" -- and not due to anything I did -- is evident lately, and disturbing. At the limit, it's Microsoft-y.

Again, if Google as a whole were to standardize early and often, just to take one example as we've done with the missing device and sensor APIs for mobile via Firefox OS (with Samsung patching WebKit for Tizen to match), we'd have a better web, faster. Some of the delays there can be blamed on Android, but not all.

> The interesting thing is that if asm.js has sufficient adoption, the 'web' part of the equation may very well not matter at all.

No, for Emscripten/ASM.js, you still need a C or C++ runtime, not just libc/stdio/stdlib stuff but various graphics, audio, and other APIs.

> In fact, you're the one that decided to ignore what Google has been doing and invest in asm.js to begin with, so divesting any claim in the role of asm.js's possible ascendency is a bit of a stretch.

Here you show your bias. I didn't "ignore" what Google has been doing, I estimated it as too costly to risk.

Now you tell me why the shoe isn't on the other foot. Why did Google "ignore" what we've been doing to advance JS for the last two years, and move all its Aarhus talent onto Dart, at some cost to V8? And at the cost of Epic, a "sale" we won that Google could have, had it only invested a bit more in JS.

You really do have a pro-Google, anti-Mozilla animus -- good/bad or purple/shiny, I don't care.

/be