Comments on: Google Native Client: web deluxe, or ActiveX redux?

By: Chip

Chip — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 00:43:00 +0000

Indeed, Shaune, there are parallels. Pretty soon after the web model was introduced, it became apparent that the web's thin client model presented some real challenges for running any application that's highly interactive. People have been trying to solve that problem in many ways, and this is one more.

By: Chip

Chip — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 23:43:00 +0000

Indeed, Shaune, there are parallels. Pretty soon after the web model was introduced, it became apparent that the web’s thin client model presented some real challenges for running any application that’s highly interactive. People have been trying to solve that problem in many ways, and this is one more.

By: Shaune

Shaune — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 20:09:00 +0000

Does this all seem to be reverting back to client/server? The only real difference seems to be that the code is downloaded from the server on demand now, instead of being installed via CD… What's old is new again!

By: Shaune

Shaune — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 19:09:00 +0000

By: Troy N. Horse

Troy N. Horse — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:48:00 +0000

Wooooohhhoooooo!!!

Good times to come for us Phishing-, Virus- and Trojan-horse-writers.

Merci beauuuuuuucoup Google!!!!

By: Troy N. Horse

Troy N. Horse — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:48:00 +0000

Wooooohhhoooooo!!!

Good times to come for us Phishing-, Virus- and Trojan-horse-writers.

Merci beauuuuuuucoup Google!!!!

By: Bryan

Bryan — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:44:00 +0000

Bzzzt. Java is as fast as native code. Bytecode is compiled into native x86 code. The only problem with Java is startup time. When running a Java applet, the JVM has to:

1) Download the remote jar file

2) Uncompress the .jar file into memory

3) Verify the bytecode to make sure it's not evil/corrupt

4) Launch the app

4.5) Compile the bytecode into native x86 instructions (or native SPARC instructions or whatever is native)

5) Run at native speed (including processor specific features that ahead-of-time compilation can't anticipate)

So Java is as fast as native code providing similar features (such as array bounds checking, garbage collection, etc). So the real argument for the native client plugin would be to improve startup speed compared to Java.

Java is as fast as C++. Stop spreading the FUD.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:44:00 +0000

Bzzzt. Java is as fast as native code. Bytecode is compiled into native x86 code. The only problem with Java is startup time. When running a Java applet, the JVM has to:

1) Download the remote jar file
2) Uncompress the .jar file into memory
3) Verify the bytecode to make sure it’s not evil/corrupt
4) Launch the app
4.5) Compile the bytecode into native x86 instructions (or native SPARC instructions or whatever is native)
5) Run at native speed (including processor specific features that ahead-of-time compilation can’t anticipate)

Java is as fast as C++. Stop spreading the FUD.

By: Chip

Chip — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:32:00 +0000

But Lisp can't run in a browser (AFAIK?)

By: apotheon

apotheon — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:57:00 +0000

One quibble:

There are compilers (to "native code") for Common Lisp, so yes — Lisp does do it.

By: Chip

Chip — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:32:00 +0000

But Lisp can’t run in a browser (AFAIK?)

By: apotheon

apotheon — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:57:00 +0000

One quibble:

There are compilers (to “native code”) for Common Lisp, so yes — Lisp does do it.