• DarkenLM@artemis.camp
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      And it will get worse with WASM. At least now we can see the entirity of the code and even patch it if required, and WASM might make that way harder.

      • ripe_banana@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’d argue that having a sandbox that can run binaries with a limited and customizable feature set is actually a good thing for the web. I think there are more technically competent solutions, but the fact that WASM is available on virtually every machine and os, makes it pretty powerful.

        If implemented right WASM might speed up our web apps, keep the browser sandbox that is actually quite nice, and run on pretty much any machine. If they open sourced the code, that’d be even better.

        Between minified js and WASM, I think I’d take WASM (I can’t understand minified js anyway). Between a pure html site and WASM, I think I’d take the pure html site (but I don’t think we will be living in that world anytime soon).

        • DarkenLM@artemis.camp
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The problem with sandboxes is that there isn’t a perfect prision. Eventually, ways will be found to break out of it, and there will be bad actors that will take advantage of such.

          • MajorHavoc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’ll grant that COM, ActiveX, and Adobe/Shockwave Flash turned out to be security nightmares.

            But maybe it’ll be fine this time…/s

            It’s technically possible that widespread use of hallucination-prone AI code-assist is the quality control tool that was missing in the several previous attempts…

  • JakenVeina@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    TL;DR, from what I can tell: Dropbox was using a JS bundler that didn’t support code-splitting or tree-shaking (y’know, the staples of modern JS bundling) and swapped to one that does. Not that there aren’t plenty sub-optimal components in code I work on, at home and at work, but there’s nothing revolutionary going on here.