• 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…