58
Condor
72d

*Opens some Computerphile video on YouTube in Chrome Canary*
CPU > hey ho dude, wait a minute..! I can't process all of this in realtime!!! >_<

Alright.. I think I've still got a copy of all their videos sitting somewhere in the file server.. perhaps I could use that instead.
*Opens said video from the file server in SMPlayer*
CPU > aah, thanks man. Now I can allocate 15-ish % of my resources to that and give you a good watching experience.

Web browsers are really great for being the most general-purpose document viewers, application execution environments (remote code execution engines as someone here called it), and overall be one of the most versatile programs on any PC's standard software suite.

But that comes at a price.. performance. And definitely when it comes to featureful fucking WordPress shitsites (shites?), bloated YouTube, Google, Facebook, and all that fucking garbage.. I fucking hate web browsers and this "Web 2.0" that people keep on talking about. Your boatload of JavaScript frameworks just to ease your own fucking development has a real impact when it happens on dozens of tabs, you know.

Besides, can't those framework creators just make it into a "compiler" * of sorts? So that front-end devs can flail their dicks in an shit-infested environment full of libraries and frameworks all they want, but the framework can convert it into plain JS code that the web server can then serve. Or better yet, the JavaScript standard could be improved to actually be usable on its own!

Look, I'm not a front-end dev. Heck, I'm not even a dev to begin with. But what I do know is that efficiency matters, especially at large scale. Web browsers being so overgeneralized and web devs adding a boatload of fucking libraries or frameworks or whatever, it adds up, both to the CPU's and my own temper.

(*) Quote marks because source code to source code isn't really compiling, but then uglified JS looks worse than machine code anyway so meh :/

Comments
  • 10
    Let's hope that WebAssembly will be able to replace JS in some ways. That shit is dope
  • 4
    @DawidCyron it probably won't.
  • 6
    @Divisionbyzero well, it definitely won't replace JS anytime soon. But at least some things will be replaced. Some websites are already implementing it, the only problem now is the fact that there is basically no backward compatibility
  • 8
    @DawidCyron I look forward to WA, however I fear it will be like everything else :
    > have poor performance
    > increase performance by improving hardware or find new software ways
    > get a real boost in performance
    > "Nice, we can do so much more now!"
    > have poor performance
  • 13
    @DawidCyron I hope so too, but I also have my reservations towards it with regards to security.. it's one thing to run something that some random person coded, and got served from a random place on the internet, but with JavaScript you can at least see the source code, ugly as it may be once it went through the uglifiers and minifiers. But with WebAssembly, code that can directly address the CPU.. also served from the internet, but of which the source cannot be seen.. that's on a whole another level. I hope that browser vendors will be able to sandbox this stuff, but I'm honestly concerned about it.
  • 5
    @Condor yeah, that is somewhat scary. I'm somewhat surprised that we havn't heard about any attacks using WA yet
  • 2
    @DawidCyron probably because hardly anyone's using it yet
Your Job Suck?
Get a Better Job
Add Comment