Firecucked

>Firefox 52 supports WebAssembly, a new format for safe, portable, and efficient binary programs on the Web

> safe
> binary

fucking kill me now!

how do you disable web assembly in ff 52?

couldn't find anything in about:config

Other urls found in this thread:

s3.amazonaws.com/mozilla-games/ZenGarden/EpicZenGarden.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

awwww sheeeet, it's finally here. :>

i can't wait for node.js to fizzle out after javascript dies

Wait what no
They were being unironic?

>binary programs on the web
no, put an end to this now
stop for the love of god

too late faggets, right when flash died!! :D :D :D

Which language will take over Javascript's position as front-end language of choice?

My money's on Memesnek.

about:config --> javascript.options.wasm = false

Can someone explain this to a noob here?

wasm runs in the exact same sandbox JS does, so there's no additional security risk.

Since most sites minify their JS anyhow, you're not even losing readability.

>Writing an application for Mac and Linux and Windows is a massive pain in the ass with fragmented codebases

>What if we just did all development in apache/nginx server with a web interface, so if it works in Firefox/Chrome, then it works no matter what actual platform they're running

>Ok but what if we made it a bit more powerful so we aren't just giving everyone glorified web pages

>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

REEEEEEEE FUCKING WEB STANDARDS WHY CAN'T BROWSERS JUST IGNORE THEM AND IMPLEMENT THEIR OWN STUFF

your browser will execute obscure binary blobs (not scripts whose source code is human readable), this will be a security nightmare, prepare your anuses

Not any different from javascript it just trades one language for another. Webasm is more efficient though

> Not any different from javascript

javascript is human readable, webasm is not.

ever try reading assembly vs a high level language (c, python, etc)? it's kinda like that.

>javascript is human readable, webasm is not.
>he's never read a web developer's JS

Not that guy but you have a point.
However, turning off Javascript is one of the best features any browser could have. I would never use one without it.

does this mean ublock and noscript is fucked?

>(not scripts whose source code is human readable)
ah yes the so called readable javascript

yes, javascript is security nightmare shit. and yes, webasm is even darker security nightmare shit.

GUYS MY HANDS A LITERALLY SHAKING RIGHT NOW THIS CANT BE TRUE PLS TELL ITS NOT

Any code is unreadable with bad formatting retard.

you can copy and paste it into your favorite text editor, and just do a newline on every ; character. that'll make it pretty fucking readable

I decided to make my own OC from the recaptcha script

>no obfuscated single-letter names

it's like you weren't even trying

>return!!

but why

They intentionally obfuscate things to make them unreadable tho

webassembly with a good decompiler will be better

I honestly never understood why a JS "bytecode" wasn't made it'd save on data transfer, and speed things up. It's not like websites are sending nice formatted easy to read scripts anyways.

this is going to far.

>running compiled binaries from arbitrary websites on your machine which you cannot control.

this is top tier retarded

>arbitrary code execution is now a feature
kill me now

I-I always do.

This

I don't know why is Sup Forums is being so retarded lately. Honestly I can't believe the amount of tech illiteracy right now.

Th-thanks user

I appreciate it :3

no, arbitrary, compiled, proprietary code execution from pretty much anywhere (XHR) on your machine without your explicit consent. Nor can you review the code once it has been downloaded, which you still can with javascript.

>literally the day after the CIA sandbox breakouts were released

Nigger please

>implying webassembly won't be obfuscated too
You just need to copy paste the javascript source into something to format is quick and it's readable. Sorta similar in principle but way easier than decompiling.

Gotta research more on it though. At most it's sounding like a wash at this point.

Why.

>web browser is the new OS
>it's getting "features" allowing content owners to do whatever they want with your machine

Holy shit, the Golden Age of reverse engineering is coming back
I can feel it guys

Because my Javascript is optional, minimal, and downloaded to your computer exactly how I've written it.

>CIA sandbox breakouts
Well, such a shitty way to find out...
No one is safe

Just use the nobinary addon :^)

That's fine, but the majority of it is XBOXHUEG, obfuscated to the moon and back, and never read, so why is there not an optional bytecode step than can be done server side?

bytecode can easily be larger than the original source code. compare the size of the source code of a C++ program with its binary size.

Because how the fuck do you sanitise bytecode

>implying assembly allows more capability than a high level language
>what is turing completeness

>Javascript will soon be dead, or at least have alternatives.
Please god yes.

The alternative is worse, user

omg with this new technology they will finally be able to obfuscate the meaning of their code

>obscure binary blobs
they are just instructions
it's not even close to cpu assembly
you don't even have direct memory access or memory management in web assembly
it's no more dangerous than javascript you fucking mongoloid

WTF in 52 there are no context menu icons... :(

Do you personally audit every js script that ever gets run on your browser?

It increases the attack surface

Yes

What about asm.js?

Just something to spur on wasm.

...

So why did this work while java got thrown in the cuckshed?

Mozilla
>made js
>SJW politics
>made rust
>doomed us all by implementing webasm
HOW CAN THEY GET AWAY WITH THIS!

Hasn't chrome had wasm for a while?

Java in beowser was not properly sandboxed, insecure as fuck

openness and DIY makes web great.

>professionals will take it from here guys
>progress
>adding value

Given that a straightforward VM is less complex than a JS parser and multilevel JIT engine, it probably decreases it.

Because Java is an enormous bloated piece of shit riddled with flaws and needs applets for web integration.

>why did this work
you're talking as if this isn't going the same direction that java went in

This WebAssembly is bad.
Yet all browsers will adopt it.
Like they did with JS.

So what are some problems with WebAssembly? Will it have endianness? Other binary crap problems?
Will it be hard coded for FF/Chrome?
Oh boy the old days are coming back in all of its horrors.

Thous who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

No, they put it in some kind of compiler that squashes the code to reduce size and performance.

This.

Apparently you can sell the weather, clock and stock gadgets as a novelty, infinitely.

1. Add bloat
2. Remove bloat
3. Reintroduce repackaged bloat
4. Profit

Could you retarded fucks please stop talking about things you clearly have no idea about?

All WebAssembly can do is calculate stuff. No side effects. No event handling. None of that sort.
Number goes in, Number goes out.
JavaScript is still where everything else happens.

s3.amazonaws.com/mozilla-games/ZenGarden/EpicZenGarden.html

>Sup Forums
>Could you retarded fucks please stop talking about things you clearly have no idea about?