1. 13

For those of you who don’t know, it’s a stack-based language. That might help you read it.

  1. 6

    If web JS wasn’t bad enough… now we’ll have binaries, running mystery code on our browsers ):

    1. 15

      With the tendency to “minimize” and obfuscate JavaScript, we’re essentially already running binaries, aren’t we.

      1. 7

        But it’ll be fast mystery code!

        1. 10

          I’m sure web designers and advertisers will find ways to keep the web slow.

          1. 6

            Since this is smaller and faster than javascript, we’ll be able to pack even more code into our webpages!

          2. 6

            I think the idea is that this will be a portable and relatively safe analogue of assembly in the browser. And you can disable it in browsers that implement it if you want. I hope they have some form of signed executables for this format.

            1. 3

              Does it actually have any more privileges than straight JavaScript would? Not that JS is currently “safe” at all, but we don’t need to elevate privs away from the baseline we have now.

              1. 1

                I’m saying it would be good to require a signature in order to reach the privilege baseline in the first place.

            2. 3

              function(e){function t(e,t,n,i){var r,o,s,a,l,c,d,f,p,m;if((t?t.ownerDocument||t:P)!==&&D(t),t=t||,n=n||[],!e||“string”!=typeof e)return n;

              Is honestly harder to read than assembly.

              1. 1

                Or the classic Google Analytics example:

                  (i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o),

                Objects and functions can make obfuscated code even more disgusting.