On 17/01/13 17:51, Konstantin Tokarev wrote: > > > 17.01.2013, 19:38, "Nikos Chantziaras" <rea...@gmail.com>: >> On 17/01/13 17:31, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <rea...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:rea...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> I'm thinking more of ScummVM, DOSBox, Snes9x, etc. Would you run >>> those >>> on the server? Sure you can do it. But running on the client instead >>> has enormous benefits. Having to download 10MB of JS is a small price >>> to pay. If that really was such a concern, YouTube wouldn't bee that >>> popular. >>> >>> And here we are finally, back to the thin client vs fat client debate >>> :-) It always happens when webapps are involved. >> >> Not when you don't have a server, just dump web-space ;-) >> >> Google had the right idea with NaCL, but since other browsers don't plan >> to support it, we're stuck with JS. > > 'Stuck' is keyword here, because JS from Emcscripten is not going to run as > fast > as NaCl or even close to it. However, anyone can implement NaCl for Firefox > and other browser via NPAPI plugin.
If the browsers don't come with it out of the box, then people will have to download that plugin. But if they have to download the plugin, then they might as well download the native executable application instead. The point it to be able to give a URL and have it just work without users having to manually download anything. Pretty much what web deployment is about. _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
