Google's ActiveX clone has been released:
http://google-code-updates.blogspot.com/2008/12/native-client-technology-for-running.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10118792-92.html
<<That's why we're working on Native Client, a technology that aims to give web developers access to the full power of the client's CPU while maintaining the browser neutrality, OS portability and safety that people expect from web applications. Today, we're sharing our technology with the research and security communities in the hopes that they will help us make this technology more useful and more secure.
At its core, our release consists of a runtime, a browser plugin, and a set of GCC-based compilation tools. Together, these components make it possible to build applications that run in a web browser but incorporate native code modules.>>
- Google
[edit: added snippet. -Philipp] |
Isn't this is what Microsoft has been doing for decades? |
"more fastly"? Do you mean "faster"? |
[Thanks Steve, corrected!] |
The paper (pdf) in the Native Client project page explains the similarities and differences to existing technologies, as well as performance characteristics of project.
http://nativeclient.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/nacl/googleclient/native_client/documentation/nacl_paper.pdf |
Uh... are Google creating a Flash/Silverlight/JavaFX competitor?
One wonders why Google don't just buy Sun and make JavaFX freely available – it would sit well with the Java-based Android. |
Link to Quake is broken :/
Good article otherwise...
Will this really benefit the community, or just further complicate add-ons for end users?
Will it be fast and usable, or slow and clunky like ActiveX |
The reason active x failed, was because it didn't work with 1/5 of the users (non-IE). Aside from that it also had a view security issues, but overall it was a great product, if it could have been used in firefox (on linux) as well. |
I think the difference is that Google is open sourcing many of the things they are doing, allaying concerns of a mounting stranglehold on the web platform. Not so with Silverlight, Flash, AIR and what not. If they don't like a vendor, they can just add a statement like
if (competitor) than sleep 100
With open source you just can't do that. Of course Google stranglehold is in search and ads, but that's another story. |
[removed broken link, thanks James!] |
It's sad that you had to explain what Quake is. |
It's interesting that adobe and google both use quake for their high performance web porting frameworks (eg the onflex.org/ted/2008/02/extending-adobe-flash-player-and-adobe.php adobe air port using the llvm framework and the c to actionscript 3 compiler)
I'm not really sure that the rasterwerks.com/game/phosphor/beta1.asp shockwave quake demo is the actual "native" quake to flash/air port.
[removed HTML linking] |
In view of the coming switch from resource-rich desktop gear to [iPhone-like/ trendsetting] mobile devices – that may not have the resources to run such Rich Interface Apps as these, what good is yet another framework for doing what's basically an ECMA/Javascript/AJAX-derivative embedded in yet another, if open wrapper? Yeah, its open-source status is A Good Thing, but hasn't Apple and others already shown that, outside of Quake-like stuff, well-optimized JS webapps run just as smoothly as embedded third-party run-engine ones? |
