Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

This has gone on for far too long now

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-29 15:13

It's official, the appists and coders have gone gone too far.

http://runtimejs.org/

Now that you can run a horribly inefficient, buggy, and badly programmed operating system from right within your browser, imagine all the new possibilities for web-appist-coders!

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-29 15:40

JavaScript
security, reliability and performance

is that a joke?

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-29 16:25

>>2
They actually believe that if the script fails, and it does not affect your OS or binaries, it is safe, reliable, and "working as intended" for it to be within performance.

They have a whole implied vocabulary on their propaganda. And unfortunately companies are investing in this shit, even Intel:
https://software.intel.com/en-us/node/492826
https://software.intel.com/en-us/tags/18828

The whole situation is described as: Planned Obsolesce

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-29 16:50

>>1,3
Go back to your rocking chair, gramps, and let the experts talk.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-29 16:58

http://runtimejs.org/docs/arch.html

So they basically invented a virtual machine that requires not only another OS but a fat browser, too. Congratulations, I guess.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-29 17:28

>>4
So-Sorry. Just trying to help. Sorry to be a party pooper, it's all I do these days.

>>5
More like recreated a VM for a web browser only OS, which is still Planned Obsolesce. How will they ever run their torrents then? On the ECMASrrent script? What about their video streaming? On <video>?

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-29 17:42

>>3,6
Planned Obsolesce
Please try to become less retarded.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-29 18:03

>>4
Go back to primary school, apper, and let the real programmers talk.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-29 18:26

>>7
Ok, what good use do you see for all this Javashit? Why are companies investing in this shit? Why does runtimejs even exist?
Explain it all.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-29 21:42

>>9
That's not what >>7 is aiming at. You wrote planned obsolesce twice. Grab a dictionary before you make a post here, little shitskin.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-29 21:51

>>1
That sounds pretty redundant considering Java already exists and does everything provided there and ore.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-29 22:02

>>9
Imagine a world where programmers only need to know one programming language. You use it to write your kernel, your drivers, your native applications, and even your web applications. In fact, because of this, web applications are just native applications! Their backend is written in this universal language, as well as their front end. Javascript could be the language to make this happen.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-29 22:09

>>12
Imagine a world where programmers only need to know one programming language.
Terrible!

Except when it's Lisp, because of DSLs.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-29 22:22

>>3
They actually believe that if the script fails, and it does not affect your OS or binaries, it is safe, reliable, and "working as intended" for it to be within performance.
What is wrong with that?

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-29 22:23

JavaScript is cool and me and all my bros got six figure jobs after graduating hacker school.

*punches your nerd face with my baller as fuck Ruby on Rails Spring 2014 Maker University class ring*

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-29 22:30

>>14
It's redefining safe and reliable in a way that is devoid of meaning. Of course a sandboxed failing script won't affect the outer environment, but in the end, you are just passing the difficulty to that environment because you require it in order to run.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-29 22:35

>>12
It's called the universal Turing Machine.

Name: >>16 2014-06-29 22:45

I hate doublepost, but there's another, even worse part that didn't come to my mind: The more successful runtime.js becomes, the more devoid of meaning this safe and reliable phrase is. As an operating system, the idea is to move as much as possible into Javashitland, but as soon as you do that, your security gains are for naught. Sure, everything in the outer layer is secure, but there isn't anything in the outer layer anymore.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-29 22:46

>>16
Aha!

but in the end, you are just passing the difficulty to that environment because you require it in order to run
So it is like these people who say that they have proofs of their code but they don't actually have proofs of the proofs making everything useless

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-29 22:53

When they say non-blocking event loop, are they saying the entire system is single threaded and that extra CPU cores are useless?

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-29 22:59

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-29 23:06

>>21
You know what's even simpler than an asynchronous single threaded event system? Single tasking.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-29 23:16

>>22

it is so simple it becomes complex in its simplicity.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-29 23:30

>>23
It's simple really

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-29 23:32

>>19
basic college mathematics 101, you need to retake it (or take it for the first time)

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-30 0:00

This thread is closed. You can't reply anymore.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-30 0:10

>>26
test

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-30 0:23

This thread is closed. You can't reply anymore.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-30 1:11

>>28

q

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-30 3:40

>>29
:q!

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-30 4:22

>>30
?

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-30 9:57

It's Javascript all the way down.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-30 10:07

I read the other day that microcode can have longer opcodes than ASM, like a 32 bit processor running 108 bit microcodes..

Any idea if that is common?

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-30 12:10

>>33

That is a bad idea, because non-power of two values waste bits -> waster transistors.

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-30 12:48

Some complex instruction set computers (CISC) have long microword lengths. For example, the Nanodata QM-1 computer has a 360 bit nanoword and a 16 bit microword, the IBM-370/3033-S system has a 122 bit microword, and the Digital VAX 11-780 machine has a 98 bit microword.

Name: Microapping 2014-06-30 12:57

Microapping

Name: Anonymous 2014-06-30 13:21

>>35
The fact that the nanoword is larger than the microword really bothers me.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-01 3:08

tfw OP created the thread to advertize his OS back when:
https://bbs.progrider.org/prog/read/1378264903

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-01 15:14

Can I officially suicide?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTkcGprt5rU

Just no.

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-01 21:29

>>7

Please try to become less retarded.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List