First off, if you were offended, that bad writing on my part, and I apologize. If I could edit it now, I would.
The meaning was indeed unambiguous, what I intended to say was that your choice of words damaged your credibility a wee bit. Happens to me all the time, I can see now that you just wrote a quick blog post to promote a paper a friend wrote that you found thought-provoking. No judgement.
In replies to other comments, you seem to have quite clearly addressed the concern that the proposal is essentially the Java VM all over again, countering that this proposal has a better ABI that will make all the difference (is my understanding correct?). Nowhere have I seen you address my concern that this, not just violates, but completely and utterly rejects a core design principle of the current Web that is arguably partly responsible for its success (certainly Tim Berners-Lee, the creator and essentially BDFL of the Web, argues for it).
In fact, this concern occurred to you: "I can’t use Adblock or Greasemonkey anymore (that would involve injecting code into arbitrary executables), and it’s much harder for me to take websites and use them in ways their owners didn’t originally expect. (Would search engines exist in the same form in this new world order?)" However, it looks like you didn't really think that thought through, and had never heard of the Principle of Least Power.
Again, I don't claim to fully agree with it. However, I can't deny that the Web is incredibly successful, and if I were to assert the creator of such a successful technology was completely wrong about one of the fundamental design principles that they espouse was critical to their technologies' success, I'd have some damn good arguments why.
A charismatic professor of mine, Scott Shenker, has a quote by Don Norman he likes a lot: "Academics get paid for being clever, not for being right." This, Shenker says, is why a physicist invented the Web, not a computer scientist.
I don't know. But it's hard to argue with success.
The meaning was indeed unambiguous, what I intended to say was that your choice of words damaged your credibility a wee bit. Happens to me all the time, I can see now that you just wrote a quick blog post to promote a paper a friend wrote that you found thought-provoking. No judgement.
In replies to other comments, you seem to have quite clearly addressed the concern that the proposal is essentially the Java VM all over again, countering that this proposal has a better ABI that will make all the difference (is my understanding correct?). Nowhere have I seen you address my concern that this, not just violates, but completely and utterly rejects a core design principle of the current Web that is arguably partly responsible for its success (certainly Tim Berners-Lee, the creator and essentially BDFL of the Web, argues for it).
In fact, this concern occurred to you: "I can’t use Adblock or Greasemonkey anymore (that would involve injecting code into arbitrary executables), and it’s much harder for me to take websites and use them in ways their owners didn’t originally expect. (Would search engines exist in the same form in this new world order?)" However, it looks like you didn't really think that thought through, and had never heard of the Principle of Least Power.
Again, I don't claim to fully agree with it. However, I can't deny that the Web is incredibly successful, and if I were to assert the creator of such a successful technology was completely wrong about one of the fundamental design principles that they espouse was critical to their technologies' success, I'd have some damn good arguments why.
A charismatic professor of mine, Scott Shenker, has a quote by Don Norman he likes a lot: "Academics get paid for being clever, not for being right." This, Shenker says, is why a physicist invented the Web, not a computer scientist.
I don't know. But it's hard to argue with success.