Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by haberman 4565 days ago
So providing APIs designed for C and C++ (instead of gluing it to JavaScript APIs) makes PNaCl the same as either an unsandboxed, proprietary, closed-source, non-OS-portable, non-CPU-portable Microsoft technology from the 90s, or a proprietary, closed-source Adobe technlogy from the 2000s?

I think that may be a false dichotomy.
1 comments
TazeTSchnitzel 4565 days ago
Well, PNaCl is poorly specified, difficult to implement for other browser vendors, and relies on a single implementation.
link
haberman 4565 days ago
> PNaCl is poorly specified

Not sure that's fair: https://developers.google.com/native-client/dev/reference/pn...

But even if all of those things was true, that makes it ok to call it ActiveX? By that logic I can call Firefox IE because it implements extensions to JavaScript that have not (yet) been standardized. But that wouldn't be fair and neither is calling PNaCl ActiveX.

link