Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment jQuery is great in libraries vs frameworks (Score 1) 126

Personally, I find jQuery great as the baseline to support bespoke programming solutions.

There is a LOT of love for framework over libraries like jQuery, but in my experience most hit up against Dietzler's Law* pretty hard. with frameworks one has to be rock solid in the real browsers stuff AND the framework one chose AND the hacks you had to set up to meet the gap between requirements and the framework sweetspot. (vs bespoke, where it's just the real browser stuff and then straight to the gap ;-)

*Dietzler's Law: "Every Access project will eventually fail because, while 80% of what the user wants is fast and easy to create, and the next 10% is possible with difficulty, ultimately the last 10% is impossible because you can’t get far enough underneath the built-in abstractions, and users always want 100% of what they want" - but it's generally applicable

Comment Re:Evolution of PNaCL, asm.js (Score 2) 126

Everybody do most definitely not know that PNaCl is the way to go. PNaCl suffers from many difficult problems, such as being based on LLVM bitcode, which is not static, but is machine-specific and has undefined behaviour. The PNaCl team has put a huge amount of effort into working around those fundamental problems, with quite a bit of success, but it's still not in any way a very good solution.

wasm will take advantage of some of that work, it seems, but its bytecode will be more strictly defined and designed for the purpose, which will help a lot. wasm is much more based on asm.js, being at first just a binary encoding of it. That in itself is a huge improvement on the hacky way it was originally implemented, though.

Comment Re:Here's a FAQ for slashdotters (Score 1) 126

In other words, it's exactly like Java

Point A: Unlike Java.

Point B: Depends on your definitions, but fairly unlike Java.

Point C: Unlike Java.

Point D: Unlike Java.

Point E: Unlike Java.

How you can be given five different ways that wasm is unlike Java and conclude that it is "exactly like Java" is not easily comprehended.

The trouble with being poor is that it takes up all your time.