Recent

Author Topic: Anybody thinking about WebAssembly?  (Read 14668 times)

skalogryz

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2770
    • havefunsoft.com
Re: Anybody thinking about WebAssembly?
« Reply #15 on: June 21, 2015, 06:42:05 am »
Graeme should have started a pascal based browser. No update so far.

edvard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
Re: Anybody thinking about WebAssembly?
« Reply #16 on: June 21, 2015, 08:35:00 am »
There's a working example of a browser in the "LCLWebkit" package found here:
http://users.telenet.be/Jan.Van.hijfte/qtforfpc/lclwebkit.zip

and others have been working on "LazWebkit" here:
http://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php?topic=20003.0
http://sourceforge.net/projects/lazwebkit/

Neither have been updated terribly recently, but are good examples of where to start, and being based on WebKit, they have JavaScript support.
 :D 
All children left unattended will be given a mocha and a puppy.

Arch (though I may go back to Debian)| FreePascal 3.2.2 + Lazarus 2.2.4, GTK2+ and Qt.  Mostly Qt...

ttomas

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 245
Re: Anybody thinking about WebAssembly?
« Reply #17 on: June 21, 2015, 10:08:33 am »
It would need some work, but it's generally a good thing.
WASM as compiler-target, HTML5 as widget-set. (or call it WEBGET's)
Quote
or it could fcl adapt to be html5 compatible it self. lcl is out of competition for this.
lcl/vcl out of competition?
http://www.vcljs.com/
Developed in TrueScript. Developing in JavaScript is nightmare for bigger projects. If Object Pascal exists...

jc99

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 553
    • My private Site
Re: Anybody thinking about WebAssembly?
« Reply #18 on: June 21, 2015, 10:22:09 am »
The benefit for having a virtual-compiler-target like JVM or WASM is that these are the first things which are ported to new machines.
LCL might be a little heavy-weighted for a web-browser-driven application. But this will strongly depend on the widget-set.
OS: Win XP x64, Win 7, Win 7 x64, Win 10, Win 10 x64, Suse Linux 13.2
Laz: 1.4 - 1.8.4, 2.0
https://github.com/joecare99/public
'~|    /''
,_|oe \_,are
If you want to do something for the environment: Twitter: #reduceCO2 or
https://www.betterplace.me/klimawandel-stoppen-co-ueber-preis-reduzieren

marcov

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11382
  • FPC developer.
Re: Anybody thinking about WebAssembly?
« Reply #19 on: June 21, 2015, 11:05:58 am »
Without FCL/LCL adaptation to browsers (HTML5+CSS) it has no practical use.

I think that is too mild. For a managed, sandboxed target it is better to start new libraries.


BitBangerUSA

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
Re: Anybody thinking about WebAssembly?
« Reply #20 on: June 24, 2015, 03:50:28 pm »
yesterdays (6/23) Security Now show on TWIT TV had some discussion on WebAssembly.
Lazarus Ver 2.2.6 FPC Ver 3.2.2
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit

edvard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
Re: Anybody thinking about WebAssembly?
« Reply #21 on: June 28, 2015, 09:41:36 pm »
Very cool, watching now. 8)

For everybody interested, here's the podcast on Youtube, marked at where he begins to talk about this:
https://youtu.be/CGvU6fZSNZ8?t=3270

EDIT: Just watched.  No new information, just Steve Gibson thinks it's awesome. :\
« Last Edit: June 28, 2015, 09:46:08 pm by edvard »
All children left unattended will be given a mocha and a puppy.

Arch (though I may go back to Debian)| FreePascal 3.2.2 + Lazarus 2.2.4, GTK2+ and Qt.  Mostly Qt...

jc99

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 553
    • My private Site
Re: Anybody thinking about WebAssembly?
« Reply #22 on: June 29, 2015, 12:40:52 am »
Very cool, watching now. 8)

For everybody interested, here's the podcast on Youtube, marked at where he begins to talk about this:
https://youtu.be/CGvU6fZSNZ8?t=3270

EDIT: Just watched.  No new information, just Steve Gibson thinks it's awesome. :\
Thanks for the link, I just watched too. I still think it's worth following.
If back then everybody thought 'A let's see how the others do the walking', we'd still live in the trees.
OS: Win XP x64, Win 7, Win 7 x64, Win 10, Win 10 x64, Suse Linux 13.2
Laz: 1.4 - 1.8.4, 2.0
https://github.com/joecare99/public
'~|    /''
,_|oe \_,are
If you want to do something for the environment: Twitter: #reduceCO2 or
https://www.betterplace.me/klimawandel-stoppen-co-ueber-preis-reduzieren

edvard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
Re: Anybody thinking about WebAssembly?
« Reply #23 on: June 30, 2015, 06:10:27 am »
Thanks for the link, I just watched too. I still think it's worth following.
If back then everybody thought 'A let's see how the others do the walking', we'd still live in the trees.

I agree.  I plan on following as well.  If I knew better how compilers work, and especially FPC, I'd be working up some patches as of yesterday.  It would be really cool to have FreePascal be one of the earliest to support this.  I realize that the project is still young, and questions remain as to it's viable future, but if there is any technology that's going to replace JavaScript as the de facto engine for web interaction, I believe it's this, or something very similar.
All children left unattended will be given a mocha and a puppy.

Arch (though I may go back to Debian)| FreePascal 3.2.2 + Lazarus 2.2.4, GTK2+ and Qt.  Mostly Qt...

marcov

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11382
  • FPC developer.
Re: Anybody thinking about WebAssembly?
« Reply #24 on: June 30, 2015, 09:25:47 am »
Thanks for the link, I just watched too. I still think it's worth following.
If back then everybody thought 'A let's see how the others do the walking', we'd still live in the trees.

But they did adapt, they didn't keep their own tree ways on the ground,  we walk upright now.

Things that might be fine for the trees (native apps in relatively unconstrained OSes) might not be for good for the plains (managed bytecodes in a tightly constrained VMs).

I think the people that really believe in webassembly start over and make it right, they don't try a quick fix by trying to retarget something potentially unsuitable.

Thaddy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14197
  • Probably until I exterminate Putin.
Re: Anybody thinking about WebAssembly?
« Reply #25 on: June 30, 2015, 10:58:09 am »
@Marco:
I think you might be a little bit wrong.
From Turing completeness follows that anything that is Turing complete can be expressed in anything else that is Turing complete.   

The rest is comfort or perceived easy of use. That's not clear here.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2015, 11:01:03 am by Thaddy »
Specialize a type, not a var.

marcov

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11382
  • FPC developer.
Re: Anybody thinking about WebAssembly?
« Reply #26 on: June 30, 2015, 02:00:03 pm »
@Marco:
I think you might be a little bit wrong.
From Turing completeness follows that anything that is Turing complete can be expressed in anything else that is Turing complete.   

And if you want to be pedantic, Turing only describes problems using a VM abstraction with calculation time (which he ignores) and memory constraints (which he sets to infinite). In programs that don't only calculate, you also have other constraints, and in a browser VM even more, which makes them unequal. Moreover memory and user patience are finite.

Even programmer's patience is finite. If not, I'm waiting for your port of Lazarus to Malebolge.

« Last Edit: June 30, 2015, 02:26:11 pm by marcov »

Thaddy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14197
  • Probably until I exterminate Putin.
Re: Anybody thinking about WebAssembly?
« Reply #27 on: June 30, 2015, 03:38:29 pm »
I thought so, but not pedantic, merely straight educational. But I also thought you were one of the few that understood infinity is not a good business point of view.
Hence I referred.
[Edit]
Given time is not a constraint it can be done.

Agreed?

« Last Edit: June 30, 2015, 03:44:11 pm by Thaddy »
Specialize a type, not a var.

jc99

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 553
    • My private Site
Re: Anybody thinking about WebAssembly?
« Reply #28 on: July 03, 2015, 12:48:08 am »
 :D Hey what about a compiler-target: "Turing" so we could compile directly to a turing-VM ? a infinite one, or cause  ;D

OS: Win XP x64, Win 7, Win 7 x64, Win 10, Win 10 x64, Suse Linux 13.2
Laz: 1.4 - 1.8.4, 2.0
https://github.com/joecare99/public
'~|    /''
,_|oe \_,are
If you want to do something for the environment: Twitter: #reduceCO2 or
https://www.betterplace.me/klimawandel-stoppen-co-ueber-preis-reduzieren

 

TinyPortal © 2005-2018