Interesting, I've never heard that criticism of NaCl before. I guess it makes some sense if you're engineering toward a "thin client" model with cheap, minimalist hardware.
The main concern about NaCl though, is that it's not portable, it's just Google's version of ActiveX.
So I guess he could have just said "great, now we can do what ActiveX could 10 years ago."
Comments
Interesting, I've never heard that criticism of NaCl before. I guess it makes some sense if you're engineering toward a "thin client" model with cheap, minimalist hardware.
The main concern about NaCl though, is that it's not portable, it's just Google's version of ActiveX.
So I guess he could have just said "great, now we can do what ActiveX could 10 years ago."
there are noticeably less dependencies to the underlying OS and a stricter security model. pnacl even goes further with being architecture neutral.
sometimes the inner qualities of a system are those that matter.