Slashdot Mirror
Chrome 14 Beta Integrates Native Client
derGoldstein writes "This year Microsoft kept signaling that it's going back to lower-level code with a C++ renaissance. It would give C++ programmers the same priority that was, up until now, reserved for .Net programmers. They even launched a new show about it on their Channel9. Now Google wants to appeal to native programmers with their Native Client for Chrome. It seems the two companies want to cover both the higher-level JavaScript and lower-level C/C++. I dare hope this will give seasoned C/C++ programmers a place alongside JavaScript programmers at the web development table."
I dare hope this will give seasoned C/C++ programmers a place alongside JavaScript programmers at the web development table.
Yeah, nothing thrills me more than the prospect of a language with absolutely no memory safety or bounds checking being exposed to the public Internet. What could possibly go wrong?
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
There is no native client standard. They can't break compatibility by adding completely new features unrelated to anything else. They'll just result in web games etc. that only work in Chrome. It's like saying that Apple is "breaking compatibility" by making apps that don't work in Windows.
C++, especially modern C++, is such a different language from C, that it makes no sense to talk about them as if they are the same. A decent programmer can learn everything they need to know about C in about two weeks. Modern C++ really takes years to really master. When I interview programmers, I'm immediately skeptical of anyone who claims to know "C/C++". Often, this means the most advanced "C++" feature they use is the // comment.
I heard you like programming, so I put some programming in your program so you can program your program while you're programming.
I don't see it that way. There is no argument that Google is web company, and people can only experience the web through the browser, which means that the features that the "average" browser supports is a limiting factor in what Google can do.
I've always seen Chrome as a way for Google to stimulate other browsers to be better and drive innovation. Every since Chrome came onto the scene, showing off its fast rendering and javascript engine, other browser companies have had to step up their game, which is good not only for Google, but the internet as a whole.
Will other browsers support it? Maybe? If it turns out to useful, and programmers like it, I bet you can expect to see this in Firefox fairly soon. If not, it was an interesting experiment.
The original ActiveX in IE was designed with practically complete disregard for security. NaCl is the opposite of that - it's a very cleverly designed sandbox for native code.
Of course, verifying and sandboxing JS is easier. However, JS is not high-perf enough for many real-world applications. The question then becomes whether it is possible to sandbox native code without some mindboggingly complicated scheme. And the answer is yes - and I invite you to read the NaCl research paper for details. The scheme is, in fact, surprisingly simple - less so than e.g. bytecode verifier for CLR.
It's not just a tech demo anymore. They want the browser market.
Ah, yes... that lucrative, lucrative browser market.
Breakfast served all day!
I do believe the point is they are trying to make their changes as something plausible for the competition to follow. Google's goal is to ensure that they can do what they want to do on their web pages, they couldn't care less if the user is looking through chrome, Firefox or even IE, that is if they can make their software work in that format. The difference between active X and C++, is Google WANTS Microsoft and IE to follow suit and add C++, while active X was designed as something that Netscape couldn't do if they wanted to.
Do I really need to explain why it's beneficial to own the leading browser? The leading browser sets the agenda
That's not what you just said, though. You said Google "wants the browser market," in rebuttal to a guy who basically said Google made Chrome as a way to set the agenda (causing other browser vendors to "step up their game" in the process). Google still makes 100 percent of its money from Web sites, not browsers. As such, it still does not benefit Google to create a browser full of nonstandard things as a way to "own the browser market." The more different browsers that can use Google's Web apps, the more Google benefits.
Right now, Google's Web apps are accessible to pretty much 100 percent of the browser market. Some browsers might run them more slowly, and some might have some rendering quirks, but they're mostly available to anyone. As soon as Google starts restricting things to its own browser, it effectively cuts off a part of that market share. If Google's compatibility is 100 percent now, what sense does it make to start pushing toward 85 percent compatibility or lower?
Likewise, what sense would it make for Google to crush Firefox, Opera, and Safari, and leave the market with only two credible choices: Chrome and IE? Is that a scenario Google wants to see happen again? (And you know IE will never go away as long as Microsoft ships it free with Windows.)
So while yes, Google would like people to use Chrome and benefit from its fast JavaScript performance, good Web standards support, and automatic updates, "owning the browser market" is not really on the agenda, IMHO.
Breakfast served all day!
The sandboxing on NaCl actually is relatively incredible. Only a modified subset of x86/amd64/arm is executed - potentially unsafe instructions are not. It's actually a lot like (para)virtualization. Read about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Native_Client
http://code.google.com/chrome/nativeclient/faq.html#PreventBreakouts