What you say makes sense ; but then, the issue comes from the browser monoculture (which allows exploit scaling).
Or from the precompiled plugin monoculture, which applies to Java and Flash, who were only distributed as precompiled binaries.
Exploits as well exist in almost any code that parses complex data coming from outside (loaders for PNG, JPG, HTML, WEBM...)... why make a special case for WASM?
I think the comparison is unfair ; Javascript/asmjs/WASM can't address the host memory the way an ActiveX component could.
It's easy for an ActiveX component to crash almost any host, simply access a NULL pointer from your code.
Doing this from a Javascript/asmjs/WASM program is several orders of magnitude harder, and generally needs to be specially tailored for one specific version of one specific browser.
This is surprisingly easy to find crashes using dumb fuzzing (you can look at "radamsa").
To get more accurate results, you can use American Fuzzy Lop, which guides the fuzzing using live coverage information.
> Programming languages started getting more complex, harder to learn, and use starting with C++.
Just because a language is easy to learn doesn't make it easy to use.
If this were the case, we would all be programming in Brainfuck!
And it's a lot more easy to write a working program in Java than in C (hell, lots of Java programmers don't even know what a memory leak or a "link error" means)
> And OO design and programming has failed in each and every goal for which it was originally proposed.
Despite OO turning out not being the promised silver bullet (code reuse, natural design,...), OO was a huge improvement and still is a huge success.
If you're not convinced: https://www.quora.com/Was-obje...
"7 minutes, 26 seconds, and the Fundamental Theorem of Agile Software Development" ( https://vimeo.com/79106557 )
JB Rainsberger explains how we usually do our estimates based on essential complexity, although the dev time is often being dominated by accidental complexity (at least, it's quickly watched:-))
The fact that the GPL "requires" people to do so many things means that it's taking away freedom.
Whose freedom? Users, distributors, maintainers, vendors, service providers? You can't guarantee 100% freedom to each of them simultaneously. They are incompatible.
For example, allowing distributors to do everything they want (e.g not providing source code) will prevent users to do everything they want (e.g modifying the program). So, it makes no sense simply to state that a license "reduces freedom in general".
So, let's please stop saying imprecisely wrong things like "GPL code doesn't give me freedom because it puts restrictions on the way I can redistribute it". The GPL has always been about protecting the freedoms of the end-users at all cost, not the the vendors' freedoms.
It turns out codingstyle-related debates become mostly inexistent when people don't have to manually enforce the stylistic rules themselves.
So just hook uncrustify or astyle at the beginning of your build process, and commit the configuration file. Problem solved.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bath-water. Although there certainly is a subjective part to code quality, the objective part is big enough to be considered.
Put those architecture astronauts in front of somebody else's code, and they will prefer the non-astronauts versions.
What a load of crap.
Your privacy seems to be dead, yeah. That's your problem ; especially if you did it by stupidly giving away private information to random private corporations.
Just don't believe that we all share your privacy-killing way of life.
Use Tor, disable javascript by default, only use free-software, don't bring your cellphone everywhere you go (and keep it turned off most of the time), use email encryption, and don't stay logged in gmail/google when you browse the web!
But maybe, you would prefer that privacy were actually dead, because that would allow you to rationalize that you made the right choices accepting these intrusive behaviours from private corporations, now that you have become dependent on the convenience they provide..
A lot of people seem to equate "distributed version control" to "git". This is incredibly short-sighted (See mercurial, bazaar, bitkeeper, darcs. Raise your hand if you're fluent in any other dvcs than git).
Git is the C++ of version control: it's incredibly powerfull, but needlessly complicated. It's the result of piling unrelated features while trying not to break the workflow of existing users.
The issue is, that after monthes of learning to master this complexity, you become convinced that it's necessary. It's not.
And yes, git can also be seen as version control for hipsters. After all, it's designed around letting people diverge from the accepted path:-)
> Torrents Time is trying to make sure Hollywood can't wake up.
This is the attitude I don't understand.
What about their impact on the law?
Even if you're not into Disney movies, you're still impacted by the legislative bullshit we're currently diving in ("Mickey Mouse" copyright act, aka DMCA) indirectly caused by Disney copyright holders.
It wouldn't bother me if this bullshit only applied to Disney movies, however, its scope is much broader.
Experience has shown us that the content industry is continuously trying to make illegal anything they think reduces profit.
More precisely, first they make it technically challenging (DRM), then, they make illegal to win the challenge (DMCA).
For example, it's currently illegal, de facto, to implement a DVD player as free software (because it implies disclosing the DVD decryption key).
How is it not going to affect you, even if you don't "consume" content provided by those who pushed these laws?
Another example: it's illegal to implement a hardware DVD player who allows skipping the 'anti-piracy' announcements... and the commercials.
How is it not affecting me when I want to watch *any* movie?
Slashdot Mirror
People, keep safe from piracy : don't travel by boat.
If he's looking for more than that, there's an easy answer. It's called Parenting.
Although parenting would certainly work, if it's an "easy answer", what's preventing us from applying it already?
What you say makes sense ; but then, the issue comes from the browser monoculture (which allows exploit scaling). Or from the precompiled plugin monoculture, which applies to Java and Flash, who were only distributed as precompiled binaries.
... why make a special case for WASM?
Exploits as well exist in almost any code that parses complex data coming from outside (loaders for PNG, JPG, HTML, WEBM...)
I think the comparison is unfair ; Javascript/asmjs/WASM can't address the host memory the way an ActiveX component could.
It's easy for an ActiveX component to crash almost any host, simply access a NULL pointer from your code. Doing this from a Javascript/asmjs/WASM program is several orders of magnitude harder, and generally needs to be specially tailored for one specific version of one specific browser.
Can Wine actually run 16-bit programs?
This is surprisingly easy to find crashes using dumb fuzzing (you can look at "radamsa"). To get more accurate results, you can use American Fuzzy Lop, which guides the fuzzing using live coverage information.
This would be the fastest road to get a GNU/Linux port.
Alexa, fire!
> Programming languages started getting more complex, harder to learn, and use starting with C++.
...), OO was a huge improvement and still is a huge success.
Just because a language is easy to learn doesn't make it easy to use.
If this were the case, we would all be programming in Brainfuck!
And it's a lot more easy to write a working program in Java than in C (hell, lots of Java programmers don't even know what a memory leak or a "link error" means)
> And OO design and programming has failed in each and every goal for which it was originally proposed.
Despite OO turning out not being the promised silver bullet (code reuse, natural design,
If you're not convinced: https://www.quora.com/Was-obje...
"7 minutes, 26 seconds, and the Fundamental Theorem of Agile Software Development" ( https://vimeo.com/79106557 ) :-))
JB Rainsberger explains how we usually do our estimates based on essential complexity, although the dev time is often being dominated by accidental complexity (at least, it's quickly watched
The fact that the GPL "requires" people to do so many things means that it's taking away freedom.
Whose freedom? Users, distributors, maintainers, vendors, service providers? You can't guarantee 100% freedom to each of them simultaneously. They are incompatible. For example, allowing distributors to do everything they want (e.g not providing source code) will prevent users to do everything they want (e.g modifying the program). So, it makes no sense simply to state that a license "reduces freedom in general". So, let's please stop saying imprecisely wrong things like "GPL code doesn't give me freedom because it puts restrictions on the way I can redistribute it". The GPL has always been about protecting the freedoms of the end-users at all cost, not the the vendors' freedoms.
Or Python?
It turns out codingstyle-related debates become mostly inexistent when people don't have to manually enforce the stylistic rules themselves.
So just hook uncrustify or astyle at the beginning of your build process, and commit the configuration file. Problem solved.
Please note that it doesn't have to work to be patented.
Technically, no "Linux" is involved here.
I didn't know graphic cards could have a "volkswagen mode" !
When you think about it, there's a lot that's pretty fishy about our reality
Maybe our way of thinking which is the fishy one.
Are you suggesting that he might be unbiased?
Interestingly, a lot of us did learn to paint and play basketball at school.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bath-water. Although there certainly is a subjective part to code quality, the objective part is big enough to be considered.
Put those architecture astronauts in front of somebody else's code, and they will prefer the non-astronauts versions.
As if the web wasn't full of guides/tips about working around Windows or Android quirks ...
What a load of crap.
Your privacy seems to be dead, yeah. That's your problem ; especially if you did it by stupidly giving away private information to random private corporations.
Just don't believe that we all share your privacy-killing way of life.
Use Tor, disable javascript by default, only use free-software, don't bring your cellphone everywhere you go (and keep it turned off most of the time), use email encryption, and don't stay logged in gmail/google when you browse the web!
But maybe, you would prefer that privacy were actually dead, because that would allow you to rationalize that you made the right choices accepting these intrusive behaviours from private corporations, now that you have become dependent on the convenience they provide..
Does the movie "Minority Report" count as prior art?
A lot of people seem to equate "distributed version control" to "git". This is incredibly short-sighted (See mercurial, bazaar, bitkeeper, darcs. Raise your hand if you're fluent in any other dvcs than git).
:-)
Git is the C++ of version control: it's incredibly powerfull, but needlessly complicated. It's the result of piling unrelated features while trying not to break the workflow of existing users.
The issue is, that after monthes of learning to master this complexity, you become convinced that it's necessary. It's not.
And yes, git can also be seen as version control for hipsters. After all, it's designed around letting people diverge from the accepted path
> Torrents Time is trying to make sure Hollywood can't wake up.
This is the attitude I don't understand.
What about their impact on the law?
... and the commercials.
Even if you're not into Disney movies, you're still impacted by the legislative bullshit we're currently diving in ("Mickey Mouse" copyright act, aka DMCA) indirectly caused by Disney copyright holders.
It wouldn't bother me if this bullshit only applied to Disney movies, however, its scope is much broader.
Experience has shown us that the content industry is continuously trying to make illegal anything they think reduces profit.
More precisely, first they make it technically challenging (DRM), then, they make illegal to win the challenge (DMCA).
For example, it's currently illegal, de facto, to implement a DVD player as free software (because it implies disclosing the DVD decryption key).
How is it not going to affect you, even if you don't "consume" content provided by those who pushed these laws?
Another example: it's illegal to implement a hardware DVD player who allows skipping the 'anti-piracy' announcements
How is it not affecting me when I want to watch *any* movie?