Spectacular Optical is a user on cronk.stenoweb.net. You can follow them or interact with them if you have an account anywhere in the fediverse. If you don't, you can sign up here.

I don't mean new IE in like "oh rag on the popular one"

I mean as in shit breaks without it, because sites sometimes require Chrome specific bullshit so I have to have this piece of shit installed for the occasional site that won't work

And Google is unilaterally dictating standards by abusing its market position

@Elizafox NaCL was a transparent attempt at ActiveX Part 2 - WebAssembly isn't that much better...

> And Google is unilaterally dictating standards by abusing its market position

so much this - Google is ramming through standards to cause fatigue implementing them for people who aren't google, and for shit that is a security hazard waiting to happen and only good for ChromeOS (cough WebUSB)

@calvin WebAssembly has actual support behind it from browsers besides Chrome. It's actually industry-wide. Even Microsoft backs it.

NaCl is truly evil though and /does/ reinvent ActiveX.

@Elizafox well, true in that WebASM has buy in - I just hate it on a moral level

Spectacular Optical @calvin

@Elizafox more "the web is a document platform, you bastards!"

but that fight was lost decades ago, so I'll just continue to be bitter on the web

ยท Web ยท 0 ยท 1

@calvin yeah that battle is long since lost; now imo the fight should be "exterminate JavaScript"

if we HAVE to have code on the web, at least make it not js

@Elizafox @calvin The problem is that every attempt to use WWW as an application platform has basically been guaranteed to be horrible.

ActiveX: Horrible, insecure, and proprietary.
Java: Horrible, insecure, slow, and conflicting compatibility.
Shockwave: Horrible, slow.
Flash: Horrible, insecure, slow.
JavaScript+HTML5: Horrible, horrifically slow.
Silverlight: Horrible, proprietary.
NaCl: Ditto.
WebAssembly: Probably horrible and insecure.

@calvin @Elizafox

๐—–๐—›๐—”๐—ก๐—š๐—˜ ๐— ๐—ฌ ๐— ๐—œ๐—ก๐——