* Jacob Bachmeyer <jcb62...@gmail.com> [2021-03-17 05:16]: > Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > > 2. Browsers do not offer POSIX API to JS/WebAssembly for very > > good reasons. > > > > The other issue is that it wouldn't really be an operating system, if > > it runs in a web browser. Which kinda is the whol point of the GNU > > project. :-) > > The GNU project also provides some application software. Octave or Emacs, > to name two examples, could usefully be offered as "run this in your > browser" in addition to the regular native ports, but general lower > performance and Web security policies are likely to make browser ports of > packages like R and libGMP useful only as demonstrations.
Webassembly's performance is according to the reference about 10% less than native. code. https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc19/presentation/jangda In the sense I don't think that argument "lower performance" stands there. I would like to have Emacs in Webassembly. Somebody is already working in that direction with Emacs fork: https://github.com/emacs-ng/emacs-ng Regarding "web security policies, I would not know what it means. If there is Emacs in Webassembly, it gives me freedom to operate my business remotely. Security is provided by SSL and username/password related to the database that I would access. Jean
