Direct Source VS Open Source (100% JavaScript single page mobile browser extension +GAS +espruino)

[TelepathyConspiracy]

I guess I don't know...

How hard is it to have the most minimal VM in the browser for using C++... That's what my intuition was telling me a iframe does ...like a sandboxed environment... Suggesting it's not in the JavaScript execution flow is like webGL type stuff where you're sending a different chip the different code, but then it's not a different chip...

What happens if you put a
line100... JS function
line200... webAssembly function
line300... JS function
does it do it sequentially or does it start a second execution flow? it would make sense if it were asynchronous where the JS waits for the webAssembly to be done

[teo123]

I guess I don't know...

Look, when engineers standardize something, you should assume there is a good reason behind it. Especially if it is something that significantly constrains the user, such as not allowing WebAssembly to be executed directly from the hard drive. Engineers who make standards aren't stupid to constrain the user without a good reason. And especially if both Google and Mozilla follow that part of the standard.

What happens if you put a
line100... JS function
line200... webAssembly function
line300... JS function

I am not sure I understand your question. WebAssembly and JavaScript have to be in separate files, one is a binary file and one is a text file. If you mean whether WebAssembly functions can be called asynchronously, as far as I know, there is no standardized way to call WebAssembly functions asynchronously. But those standards change very quickly, so maybe some way has been added.

[TelepathyConspiracy]

I guess I don't know...

Look, when engineers standardize something, you should assume there is a good reason behind it. Especially if it is something that significantly constrains the user

Assuming that means you will get it wrong every time it's for bad faith reasons, like intimidating people to not disrupt your cartel for the sake of control...

[TelepathyConspiracy]

For example, Walmart is the largest employer of US jobs, they should be a vending machine if you go by the math and the technology, yet every time you ask you will get this bullshit about standards were established so they must know something when in reality it's human livestock management
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T6lxjx4ZzBM

[teo123]

I guess I don't know...

Look, when engineers standardize something, you should assume there is a good reason behind it. Especially if it is something that significantly constrains the user

Assuming that means you will get it wrong every time it's for bad faith reasons, like intimidating people to not disrupt your cartel for the sake of control...

Sorry, but that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. It makes even less sense than Flat-Earthism. What incentive do you think people at w3c (composed primarily of engineers from Google and Mozilla) have to lie that WebAssembly is not safe to run directly from the hard drive? I can see the incentive for people at Mozilla to claim that it is safe. Mozilla has been pushing for WebAssembly to get standardized, so I can see a small incentive for them to say bullshit like "WebAssembly is not a security issue, unless you consider JavaScript to be a security issue as well.". That's where I see the incentive.

[TelepathyConspiracy]

Sorry, but that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. It makes even less sense than Flat-Earthism. What incentive do you think people at w3c (composed primarily of engineers from Google and Mozilla) have to lie that WebAssembly is not safe to run directly from the hard drive? I can see the incentive for people at Mozilla to claim that it is safe. Mozilla has been pushing for WebAssembly to get standardized, so I can see a small incentive for them to say bullshit like "WebAssembly is not a security issue, unless you consider JavaScript to be a security issue as well.". That's where I see the incentive.

It's ridiculous because you deliberately interpret my arguments in bad faith... Obviously I am not suggesting every standard is a conspiracy... I'm saying you should ALWAYS know why instead of just accepting

[teo123]

Sorry, but that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. It makes even less sense than Flat-Earthism. What incentive do you think people at w3c (composed primarily of engineers from Google and Mozilla) have to lie that WebAssembly is not safe to run directly from the hard drive? I can see the incentive for people at Mozilla to claim that it is safe. Mozilla has been pushing for WebAssembly to get standardized, so I can see a small incentive for them to say bullshit like "WebAssembly is not a security issue, unless you consider JavaScript to be a security issue as well.". That's where I see the incentive.

It's ridiculous because you deliberately interpret my arguments in bad faith... Obviously I am not suggesting every standard is a conspiracy... I'm saying you should ALWAYS know why instead of just accepting

I don't think that trying to understand why each part of the standard is the way it is is a good idea. For many parts of the standard, it has to do with obscure things from retrocomputing, that you don't really benefit from knowing.
Besides, you clearly do not understand computer science well enough to understand why standards about security of WebAssembly are the way they are. In fact, it seems to me that your understanding of that part of the computer science is worse than laymen's. I think most laymen understand why, when JavaScript was in its infancy, it was not a good idea to allow JavaScript to be executed directly from the hard drive without user permission, and that for the reason now, when WebAssembly is in its infancy, it is not a good idea to allow WebAssembly to be executed directly from the hard drive.

[TelepathyConspiracy]

Well hey, thanks for the negative social engineering without addressing how many points by now? Not interested in continuing, you're a sophist and defeating sophistry isn't the standard... I will look at your link if you ever share a iframe that can access outside of the sandbox or a webAssembly for direct source but beyond that you're not worth the effort

[TelepathyConspiracy]

This isn't a response for Teo but I figured if anyone else has read this far they may be interested to know that I have hit this objective bullshit roadblock...

The if statement on line 39427 isn't returning the function... proven in the logs... this is objective bullshit, like diabolical sabotage so I can't finish my neural network project... Lots and lots of this type of thing over the years... not always this easy to reduce to an if statement to show others

https://drive.google.com/uc?export=down ... LbW60m87wD

https://drive.google.com/uc?export=down ... NEIo3HRQmN