63 ms·

Unfortunately, Java is a bit of an archival nightmare. Java Applets can do pretty much anything they want, they aren't consistent in that sense. Unlike Flash yo

Unfortunately, Java is a bit of an archival nightmare. Java Applets can do pretty much anything they want, they aren't consistent in that sense. Unlike Flash you can't just run them offline in a Projector, and the code structure of an applet is different from that of a normal Java app. This is on top of being unable to play Java games without getting a tonne of (well deserved) security warnings (unless you want to pay Oracle $100 per month for a signature.) Java in the browser was just a bad idea all around.

genericid 8y ago
Unfortunately Javascript-infested websites are a bit of an archival nightmare. Javascript can do pretty much anything it wants, it isn't consistent in that sense. You can't run them offline. Javascript in the browser is just a bad idea all around.
- tomysshadow 8y ago
  I don't see how this contradicts my point at all. This project is about saving Flash games, not Javascript.
  - genericid 8y ago
    > I don't see how this contradicts my point at all. It doesn't, sorry for suggesting that.
- egeozcan 8y ago
  You can generally "Save As..." and they tend to work just fine. Like any code which has network access, they can be dependent on various resources. I sometimes run a downloaded file through an insecure chrome instance (--disable-web-security and a unique --user-data-dir) with a catch-all service-worker. That'd probably not work with applets as they make their requests outside the browser AFAIK. Also the security sandbox of Javascript is one of the best, if not the best. So it cannot do anything it wants.
  - genericid 8y ago
    > Like any code which has network access, they can be dependent on various resources. Online resources. So you cannot run them offline.
    - gear54rus 8y ago
      Well sorry you can't use some chat app without internet connection, our bad.
      - genericid 8y ago
        Not everything is a chat application. But even a chat application can and should partially work without an internet connection: Reading old messages and composing new ones can work offline.
        egeozcan 8y ago
        That has nothing to do with Javascript. If you use canonical, cacheable URIs for your requests, my method above works fine. In my day job, I'm working on a CRM and sales system that is 100% web based and does work offline and is even offline-first (I love you Germany, but your mobile network sucks). There may be many other problems with it but offline is mostly a solved problem in the web world.
        genericid 8y ago
        Quick experiment: In a new Firefox profile, I opened a couple of websites [1]. Then I went offline and tried to load them again. Every time I just got the default "server not found" page of Firefox. "Offline" is no more solved "not hijacking scrolling", "linkable URLs" and "not re-inventing <a href> badly". [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/ https://news.ycombinator.com/, https://www.google.com/ https://www.google.com/, https://en.wikipedia.org https://en.wikipedia.org, https://www.reddit.com/ https://www.reddit.com/, https://www.nytimes.com https://www.nytimes.com
pharrington 8y ago
I understand that the implementation of Java in the browser was bad, but why do you think the idea of Java in the browser was bad?
- tomysshadow 8y ago
  Because it gives the Java programmer too much power in an environment that should be safe. For example there are applets like AppEmbed that can run an EXE in the browser. That's just insane. Flash and Shockwave in contrast are limited in that sense, you are constrained to doing what you are able to accomplish with ActionScript or Lingo (or at least, that is intended to be the case.) Flash is insecure because it's buggy, Java is insecure because it's buggy AND because it's intended to work in ways you'd think are obviously insecure!
  - pharrington 8y ago
    Maybe I'm confused because it's only relatively recently that I started again to take Java seriously, but isn't that precisely an example of a domain the Java security manager addresses? Again, I am well aware of the implementation bugs that have existed, and I don't know offhand if the security manager was part of Java's initial design or was added later, but I'm still confused as to why your ire's directed at the general concept of Java in the browser, rather than the specifically flawed implementations.
    - jplayer01 8y ago
      There's just no safe way to do what Java applets enabled (arbitrary code execution), because of the massive attack surface. It's one reason why NPAPI is dead.
      - dnomad 8y ago
        Java applets never enabled arbitrary code execution. (Where do people even come up with this stuff?) Spend five minutes on Google and you can learn about the Applet sandbox which prevented Applets from doing most anything but draw to a section of the browser window and connect back to their origin server (not unlike Javascript).

genericid 8y ago

Unfortunately Javascript-infested websites are a bit of an archival nightmare. Javascript can do pretty much anything it wants, it isn't consistent in that sense. You can't run them offline. Javascript in the browser is just a bad idea all around.

tomysshadow 8y ago
I don't see how this contradicts my point at all. This project is about saving Flash games, not Javascript.
- genericid 8y ago
  > I don't see how this contradicts my point at all. It doesn't, sorry for suggesting that.
egeozcan 8y ago
You can generally "Save As..." and they tend to work just fine. Like any code which has network access, they can be dependent on various resources. I sometimes run a downloaded file through an insecure chrome instance (--disable-web-security and a unique --user-data-dir) with a catch-all service-worker. That'd probably not work with applets as they make their requests outside the browser AFAIK. Also the security sandbox of Javascript is one of the best, if not the best. So it cannot do anything it wants.
- genericid 8y ago
  > Like any code which has network access, they can be dependent on various resources. Online resources. So you cannot run them offline.
  - gear54rus 8y ago
    Well sorry you can't use some chat app without internet connection, our bad.
    - genericid 8y ago
      Not everything is a chat application. But even a chat application can and should partially work without an internet connection: Reading old messages and composing new ones can work offline.
      - egeozcan 8y ago
        That has nothing to do with Javascript. If you use canonical, cacheable URIs for your requests, my method above works fine. In my day job, I'm working on a CRM and sales system that is 100% web based and does work offline and is even offline-first (I love you Germany, but your mobile network sucks). There may be many other problems with it but offline is mostly a solved problem in the web world.
        genericid 8y ago
        Quick experiment: In a new Firefox profile, I opened a couple of websites [1]. Then I went offline and tried to load them again. Every time I just got the default "server not found" page of Firefox. "Offline" is no more solved "not hijacking scrolling", "linkable URLs" and "not re-inventing <a href> badly". [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/ https://news.ycombinator.com/, https://www.google.com/ https://www.google.com/, https://en.wikipedia.org https://en.wikipedia.org, https://www.reddit.com/ https://www.reddit.com/, https://www.nytimes.com https://www.nytimes.com

pharrington 8y ago

I understand that the implementation of Java in the browser was bad, but why do you think the idea of Java in the browser was bad?

tomysshadow 8y ago
Because it gives the Java programmer too much power in an environment that should be safe. For example there are applets like AppEmbed that can run an EXE in the browser. That's just insane. Flash and Shockwave in contrast are limited in that sense, you are constrained to doing what you are able to accomplish with ActionScript or Lingo (or at least, that is intended to be the case.) Flash is insecure because it's buggy, Java is insecure because it's buggy AND because it's intended to work in ways you'd think are obviously insecure!
- pharrington 8y ago
  Maybe I'm confused because it's only relatively recently that I started again to take Java seriously, but isn't that precisely an example of a domain the Java security manager addresses? Again, I am well aware of the implementation bugs that have existed, and I don't know offhand if the security manager was part of Java's initial design or was added later, but I'm still confused as to why your ire's directed at the general concept of Java in the browser, rather than the specifically flawed implementations.
  - jplayer01 8y ago
    There's just no safe way to do what Java applets enabled (arbitrary code execution), because of the massive attack surface. It's one reason why NPAPI is dead.
    - dnomad 8y ago
      Java applets never enabled arbitrary code execution. (Where do people even come up with this stuff?) Spend five minutes on Google and you can learn about the Applet sandbox which prevented Applets from doing most anything but draw to a section of the browser window and connect back to their origin server (not unlike Javascript).