Slashdot Mirror
Browser Bindings for Python, Perl, and other Languages?
Garfycx asks: "Hi everybody! This week Slashdot linked to a story about Java and its roll over C/C++. While reading it I remembered one of the first strategies to make Java a de-facto standard - the browser-applet. as far as I know it did not make it, and I don't see many of them in cyberspace. But in combination with servlets they may come up again. I am not quite sure who is in need of applets but I wondered why there never was a browser-plugin for languages like Python or Perl. I would like to hear about reasons why there is no effort to expand the capabilities of websites with language-plugins. Couldn't there be a universal CORBA-like plugin for Mozilla to be used by most languages or such?"
how do you sandbox the implementation ?
java has lots of features to run in a sandbox and verifying the bytecodes + grant access if you ask for it
this would have to be added to any other implemtation
fankly I dont need another way of downloading rubish
text is enough to conveiw most information well why do you need anything else?
(pictures are handled by jpeg and PNG )
so WHY ?
games I think are the most use I have played lots of flash and applet golf games on the net but appart from that I have never used applets
oh and I think that phones running a java VM(so you can play games appart from snake) will be more prolific over the next 2 years so that battle is over
regards
john jones
IE ships with ActiveX/COM support, which provides a language-independent mechanism to plug anything you want into your browser. The user gets code-signing and some level of download control, but ultimately there's no 'sandbox' to prevent that code from doing what it wants (deleting your home directory, e-mail bomb, etc). They've been ripped for the security implications, as anyone who reads Slashdot knows.
.NET approach will be the hybrid. While you still have a Java-like runtime that has a security model, at least you won't be locked into a particular language.
Netscape chose the safe route and only provided Java applet support. This relies on the Java security model to protect the user through sandboxing from anything that they might automatically download, but locks you into Java. Mozilla/NS6 may allow some sort of XPCOM application to be downloaded and installed, but it's not as seamless as ActiveX.
The important point is that you don't get 'unsafe' languages like C++ and Perl in your browser without the security implications that everyone's roasted Microsoft's ass over.
The MS
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Back in the early days, everyone lauded Java as a means to add multimedia content to the web. However, specialized system (flash/shockwave) for this have proved so much better at this than Java that Java is essentially dead in this area. If someone is using Java for multimedia on a webpage nowadays it simply means they haven't learned how to use flash yet.
I would like to hear about reasons why there is no effort to expand the capabilities of websites with language-plugins.
Because the idea sucks. The place for code is on the server, not the client, for the following reasons:
1. Security
2. Compatability.
3. Portability.
4. Separation of presentation and logic.
The only time where it is possible to put logic on a client and get reliable performance is where you have complete control of the client's software and hardware - i.e. a closed computing environment.
That is NOT the web.
I don't want to argue about whether the user sees the "do you trust this" message every time or whether it can be hidden using BudAPI or something you cook up on your own, but basically Authorware is worthless unless you can make local system calls. If you just want to display text and some pics and play some sounds, why not just put up a web page? This explains why Macromedia started pushing Dreamweaver so hard even when they already had superior products from a development point of view. Nobody was downloading the plug-ins.
It still stands that people don't want to download the plug-ins even though they're only a meg or so. That was my point. I'm not acusing these tools of being a security concern or saying security concerns are why they aren't downloaded, the fact is these plug-ins aren't downloaded by most users for whatever reason. The Flash plug-in was an anomaly because people are like fish and other creatures possessed of eyes and they like to see flashes of light. It was stupid human trick. Plug-ins as a solution suck. Browsers are already way overloaded and it's all MS's attempt to focus everything on the web because it's the one part of the net where buzinezz ownz ur azz.
You all tell funny true things but:
.NET or so, or not?
- I am not a windows-user and can't use ActiveScripting
- I don't wanna use java
- I don't wanna use any commercial solution
- why other languages shouldn't run in a virutal machine? (there is already Internet C, for an example)
- couldn't a CORBA-Plugin restrict usage of languages?
- Why you only talk about the impact on client-side?
If a browser could bring the server close to the client (in a sandbox), then standard desktop products could just work over internet. This means that you can use e.g. gnumeric or evolution (in a restricted way) over your browser. Think of Broadway, the concept from X Consortium, that was defined for doing that. Today it could be done with a general purpose CORBA-Interface for Internet-Browsers. It's like a free and simpe
I wrote my question about a month ago and am astonished that it actually appears, uhh..