On 25/10/2014, Daniel Camolês bigat...@gmail.com wrote:
But when it comes to application
distribution. By application distribution I mean, when we want to
develop and maintain software in a central location and enable several
users with a generic client to use it.
Distribute (source or
2014-10-28 12:01 GMT-02:00 M Farkas-Dyck strake...@gmail.com:
On 25/10/2014, Daniel Camolês bigat...@gmail.com wrote:
But when it comes to application
distribution. By application distribution I mean, when we want to
develop and maintain software in a central location and enable several
users
On 28/10/2014, Daniel Camolês bigat...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-10-28 12:01 GMT-02:00 M Farkas-Dyck strake...@gmail.com:
Distribute (source or intermediate) code over 9p. Generic client is 9p
client and (compiler or interpreter) of (source or intermediate)
language.
That's interesting, but
2014-10-28 21:38 GMT-02:00 M Farkas-Dyck strake...@gmail.com:
On 28/10/2014, Daniel Camolês bigat...@gmail.com wrote:
That's interesting, but there is a problem. How do you execute
untrusted code? Maybe some kind of virtual machine?
Thus, or in capability mode.
Capability mode would require
On 28/10/2014, Daniel Camolês bigat...@gmail.com wrote:
Capability mode would require the target operating system to have this
kind of feature.
Yes.
Capsicum [1] works on FreeBSD and Linux and is being ported to OpenBSD.
Plan 9 already has its own security model [2].
Given a world that have
FYI,
There's also quad-wheel [0] which claims ES3 compliance and based upon ANSI C.
[0] https://code.google.com/p/quad-wheel/
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Louis Santillan lpsan...@gmail.com wrote:
duktape is a great find and appears quite complete. But still seems
quite large. There's
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Andrew Hills ahi...@ednos.net wrote:
On 10/25/14 13:41, F Hssn wrote:
Following suckless's minimal philosophy, I'd be interested to find out
... snip ...
latest webkit.
Do you really want to write your own Javascript engine?
Well, I hadn't thought of
F Hssn writes:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Andrew Hills ahi...@ednos.net wrote:
On 10/25/14 13:41, F Hssn wrote:
Following suckless's minimal philosophy, I'd be interested to find out
... snip ...
latest webkit.
Do you really want to write your own Javascript engine?
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 01:15:04PM -0500, F Hssn wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Andrew Hills ahi...@ednos.net wrote:
On 10/25/14 13:41, F Hssn wrote:
Following suckless's minimal philosophy, I'd be interested to find out
... snip ...
latest webkit.
Do you really want to
duktape is a great find and appears quite complete. But still seems
quite large. There's also Tiny-JS [0] (2k-ish LOC), 42Tiny-JS [1] (a
forked, enhanced, more complete version), and Espruinio [2] (same
original author as Tiny-JS, more complete but focused on Arduino
applications).
[0]
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Quentin Rameau quinq...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I tried to port surf for the webkit2 (WebKitGTK 2.6 / GTK3), here
is the code:
git://quinq.eu.org/surf2
There will be some bugs, feel free to try it, feedback welcomed.
Noob question (joined the list a couple months
When the choice you have is between 500k or 2 million lines of code,
it hurts to call anything suckless. I think the web needs a serious
reboot. It started out as a markup language for presentation-only, and
then it was morphed through a convoluted series of additions into an
application
Am I alone? Is there any hope out there?
I'm working on this problem. I think the solution is white-box testing
from the ground up, so that software encodes not just the rules about
what to do but the specific scenarios that the programmer considered.
Because we only encode rules and not
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 04:29:58PM -0200, Daniel Camolês wrote:
When the choice you have is between 500k or 2 million lines of code,
it hurts to call anything suckless. I think the web needs a serious
reboot. It started out as a markup language for presentation-only, and
then it was morphed
2014-10-25 16:59 GMT-02:00 Kartik Agaram a...@akkartik.com:
Am I alone? Is there any hope out there?
I'm working on this problem. I think the solution is white-box testing
from the ground up, so that software encodes not just the rules about
what to do but the specific scenarios that the
No, that was not what I was talking about. In this browser discussion,
I am not interested in ways to understand complexity as your proposed
solution. I think the fact that the browser needs to be this huge is a
signal that things are very, very wrong, and a new solution for
application
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 04:29:58PM -0200, Daniel Camolês wrote:
[snip]
I dream with the day when the Internet will be built
around a model simple and generic enough that a reasonable programmer
will be able to code a complete browser in a month of work or so.
Am I alone? Is there any hope
Am I alone? Is there any hope out there?
TL;DR: Imho, there is none. W3c is the total opposite of suckless software.
The problem is not with this specific organization. Design by
committee is the source of the evil. Everybody wants to put a shiny
new feature in there. Also, you never want to
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 06:12:29PM -0200, Daniel Camolês wrote:
The problem is not with this specific organization.
I meant w3c as w3crap, as in all things www-related (sons of sgml, js, css,
rdf, ...), not as the consortium, which imho isn't that much evil either: it
has only the misfortune
Quoth Daniel Camolês on Sat, Oct 25 2014 16:29 -0200:
When the choice you have is between 500k or 2 million lines of
code, it hurts to call anything suckless. I think the web needs
a serious reboot.
[snip]
But when it comes to application distribution... I know that we
have ssh and mainframe
2014-10-25 19:56 GMT-02:00 Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
first.lord.of.t...@gmail.com:
Any _popular_
reboot would have to require people to change very little about
their habits, and to do no hard thinking about the nature of the
Web--if possible, no thinking at all.
It doesn't need to be popular at
Seems like you deviated a bit from the thread subject.
On 10/25/14 13:41, F Hssn wrote:
Following suckless's minimal philosophy, I'd be interested to find out
if someone has done analysis on how an even minimal browser could be
developed in terms of SLOC, since webkit (r172694) stands at ~2
million lines, 75% of which is C++, while webkitgtk-1.10.2
Hi, I tried to port surf for the webkit2 (WebKitGTK 2.6 / GTK3), here
is the code:
git://quinq.eu.org/surf2
There will be some bugs, feel free to try it, feedback welcomed.
24 matches
Mail list logo
